I’m impressed how she connected the dots of peace and conflict resolution and decarbonization leading to sustainable green growth while balancing geopolitics and global order that respect human rights and international law. Well done for giving this TED talk
And that's, my dear friends, is why nuclear energy should NEVER be ruled out in a serious debate about decarbonization. It is the most dense energy source we currently know, and therefore the one which uses less materials to produce a certain amount of electricity. Plus, the high-temperature steam can also be employed in industrial processes for producing hydrogen, amonia, steel, and so many other products. That way, it directly replaces gas and coal in the so-called "hard-to-decarbonize" industry sectors.
Nuclear simply isn't safe, and humans have proven incapable of operating it in anywhere close to the safest way possible. Notice a nuclear power plant has been under military attack for months now. Trusting humans with nuclear is like trusting toddlers with hand grenades.
Uranium ore exports to every country's nuclear industries and 150,000 SMRs worldwide ?? CO2 nonproliferation yes Nuclear proliferation yes Military defence budgets exploding yes ? Nuclearis stupid? Yes. Nuclear will be locked in for 60years because of the Government involvement. All vehicles will be electric with in 20years. All vehicles will be automatically plugged into the national power grid. Billions of mWatts daily available. Most vehicles are parked 23hrs every day. Most people do not think beyond what they know. ? Yes. Bingo.
Nuclear will be locked in for 60years because of the Government involvement. All vehicles will be electric with in 20years. All vehicles will be automatically plugged into the national power grid. Billions of mWatts daily available. Most vehicles are parked 23hrs every day.
@Fred Wills The by products of nuclear energy are trivial. The sum of all waste products would fill a single stadium . Nuclear fuel can be reprocessed or it can be thrown down shafts into stable Earth. Nuclear reactions rearely get all the energy out, sometimes you are left with ~90% energy remaining. That would be equivalent to trillions of barrels of energy available for re-use. That's the logic behind a lot of Gen IV reactor designs and breeder reactors, hence fuel is also not in that short of a supply. In addition, there is something like 3x as much terrestrial thorium as there is Uranium.
The IEA quote that an electric car requires SIX TIMES MORE MINERAL INPUT THAN A GAS CAR is (& is meant to be) misleading. It assumes that the gasoline needed to run the car during its entire life is NOT A MINERAL INPUT. The whole point of an electric car is that it avoids that GIGANTIC & GHG generating input. This is not an honest TED talk.
Very good! I'm so happy this topic is finally getting the attention needed. I've been talking for years about the shortcomings of just changing our energy sources, without caring for the geopolitical and ecological consequences. This is exactly where I think some climate leaders, like Greta (and I do respect her a lot), are faultering. As said in the lecture, the climate crisis should be tackled seriously, taking into account all relevant factors, and based on science. We urgently need to stop making decisions based on what we feel like is the right thing to do. And also stop oversimplifying this problem as if it were only a matter of "they don't want to act". Let's fight for our planet, it's harder than might look like and takes more concessions than some leaders are willing to do.
@Peter from NZ Totally agree, Peter. Although the political system here in Brazil is very messed up, but I think your analysis does apply quite well to developed nations where the public institutions are credible.
Unfortunately, no matter the geopolitical situation, the climate is a dire emergency, and the only rational move at this point is to decarbonize ASAP and worry about the consequences later- or maybe handle them as we decarbonize. Where we can avoid trickly geopolitical situations while decarbonizing, great, but we should not slow our decarbonization to any meaningful degree for any reason except one that would cause mass suffering.
Nuclear energy isn't sustainable, unless someone has come up with an idea on what to do with nuclear waste (or how to stop wars, sabotage, or natural catastrophes from ever occurring again).
@@SibylleLeon It is actually sustainable as Bill Gates is funding projects to use nuclear waste as fuel for the reactors and it has seen good progress.
bahahahahahahahahahhahahH yeeeeahhhhh, let’s cover the world in nuclear power plants. I apologize but I feel like that does not pass the smell test. Like what, your just gonna put nuclear power plants alllllll over this shifting world? Like wouldn’t they eventually break and be bad. Don’t they require humans to work?
Amen! This is happening not far from where I live. They’ve started mining for Li under the only lake where I live and one in thousands in miles. And companies are doing so for electronic car batteries. We’re destroying the environment in attempt to save it. Should the lake run dry from global warming or collapse from Lithium mining? It’s a controversy in my town.
You're making the usual mistake. You are equating some possible environmental damage in a tiny area with the wrecking of the entire biosphere of planet Earth. You are off by a factor of about 100 million.
I think she identifies the problems very well. Her solution of collective world government to share and allocate these resources is completely impractical and will NEVER happen.
right. but that world govmt is what us imperialism aspires to, which brought with it the sociecological wiked problems of the present. instead of collective world govermnt id propose enabling local autonomy for the management of the commons, overruling private property rights
@@henriquecesardesouzasilva8766 sure, because autonomy for the management of the commons has never existed. the obshchina in now-russia, the ayllu in Andes, calpulli in México, the agbegbe in now-Nigeria, the ke'eng in Himalayas... are all MADE-UP socioecological systems that DID NOT sustain societies through somewhat democratic decision making over the collective work and land. but regarding the forecasted situation... in an era of reduced energy availability, the imperial control over world's resources will recede, and so communities' chances to take back control of their metabolism and land will grow. so i wouldnt say highly unlikely
So glad to see this side of the Renewable transition being discussed! The mainstream fascination and uncritical belief in Green Growth are worrying and it's great to see how you come around many nuances of the situation from political to ecological.
Not mentioned, but very good news, is that all these decarbonizing minerals can be recycled, unlike fossils fuels which are simply burned and emitted into the atmosphere.
And the more we extract them to decarbonize industry and transportation, the less environmentally damaging it becomes to extract them. It is a beneficial feedback loop that does not eliminate but reduces the problem. EG) Mining lithium is very carbon emitting. But the more lithium we mine for green tech, the less carbon is emitted when mining lithium.
Nate Hagens on The Great Simplification channel has done years of research and incredibly thorough productions on this, it’s many angles and other related energy topics. Can’t recommend him highly enough.
i found this talk incredibly useful and so different from many science, technology, finance or countries; policies talks about Climate Change. we can only solve climate together and understanding that and looking at the global geo-politics, it becomes clear what will help us arrive there. Thank you, Olivia!
2:04 I love the photo showing how much ore is removed with a lump to represent how much metal is extracted. It gets at the idea of extraction, how enormous it is. But it would be good to also show how much room tailings ponds take up and how these ponds need to be monitored 24/7/365 for leaks because toxic chemicals are used to leach out metal from most of the ore. I heard the volume of the tailings ponds is ten times as much as the original ore. That means the spent ore would never fit back into this big hole. I have a hunch that a thousand years ago they didn't use these chemicals to extract metal. They would have had to choose only the richest ore to extract but it would have been much safer for the environment. We can look at ways to go back to that, for the sake of the environment. We need to research and find ways to stop using these acids and chemicals for the initial stages of refining this ore.
The spent ore could certainly be fit back into the hole. The pond is not the ore. The pond could be evaporated, leaving whatever solutes it contained, and these could go back in the hole. Mining can be done in ways that do not destroy the environment; it just costs more money.
and that photo is consider as a great yield. Usually its about 5-25% of the dug soil/rock is refined to usable material. Like for example Uranium in Canada have ore grade of 16.36%, Nigeria 2.64%, Kazachstan have mines from 0.013% to 0.75%, Australia 0.057%, Namibia from 0.034% to 0.052% and these are one the biggest mines on the world (for uranium). But on the flip side something like aluminum (bauxit ore) have yield 50% and higher but the refining is quite difficult and costly, but when you have the pure metal the recycling/re-melting is easy.
A thousand years ago, there were about 350 M people on the entire planet, or about one for every 20 people today. They really didn't need very much in the way of metals. Yes, they only took the richest ore, because they had no way of finding better. And no, they didn't use "these chemicals" because they knew very little indeed about chemistry. The only thing that you can be absolutely sure of is that they didn't give a damn about the environment. What's your point? 😉
Thank you! My friends and I have been talking about a shift/change in global power(s) and how natural resources play a big part in that. She needs to give this speech on the nightly news… everyday. America(ns) is not prepared to be demoted from a first-world country, and denying this shift in global power won’t stop it from happening.
A good framing of the problem, but I think overall it's more helpful to put it in context with the rest of the Human Predicament, to see that this too is subject to the intractable multipolar traps and impossible economic imperatives that underly so many of the major interconnected and insoluble problems we face today that compose the Predicament.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Moloch is the killer in her ideas. Culture is upstream to all of these issues and if we have a culture that is obsessed with identity and consumption but lacks in compassion and connection it’s never going to work. Plus simply labelling one of the solutions as “science” fails to capture the hyper object that is climate change or the scientific method. The last two years should have proven that to everyone.
Concisely and forcefully put. It also shows how much has to change if we are to survive the re-coupling of growth (even much slower, circular-economy growth) to rare earth and mineral extraction. On the global level, even. Insightful indeed.
I hear pie in the sky dreaming here. She describes a world where all parties reject their self-interest for collective interests. That isn't going to happen, because it never happens that way. This isn't a Kumbaya world, green dreams or not.
The alternative is catastrophic, there is no pretence that this acting in collective interest will be easy, it's going to be incredibly difficult. There is a first time for everything and this could be the first time humanity steps up to the challenge of seeing that collective interest IS self interest. But yeah realistically there are going to be huge challenges and setbacks
Good News: There are many research projects underway to generate and store Green Energy that are not mineral intensive. The biggest obstacle may be the wealthiest people who have a vested interest in Lithium batteries.
You deliver excellent content to your audience. It's very interesting material. All of your effort put into creating this video is much appreciated. I'm truly grateful for your help!
What about a campaign to shift mentality away from the massive consumerism we have now? You can't have people replacing their gadgets every 2 months without unsustainable pressure on supply chains and the environment.
quit your job , stop driving and drop out ... live in the woods and do your part for the health of the planet .. if you feel so strong about consuming .... dont sauy "we" when you are part of the imaginary problem , ...... yea just as i thought .. talking crap ... and you are not willing your self to stop "massive consumption " you will shruge it off and hope someone else does the virtue of saving the planet ... tell you what ... sell your house .. sell your car , stop having kids or make a definite plan not to have any ...
yes, engineering a change in the fundamental nature of humanity sounds much more feasible than developing alternative energy sources we've already more or less identified.
Word. It is wishful thinking that the world will come together for the sake of peace and saving the planet. All indications currently are the opposite.
In the meantime the world moves on with LFP batteries without Cobalt, Nickel and Manganese or Sodium Ion batteries made from salt after desalination of sea water... Keep looking forward.
Precisely. Also Lithium for 400 million cars can be extracted in a tidy way from mineral aquifers in the Rhine valley, so relax. We're late, there will be delays so we need to cut down consumption and that must crash money system. But money is just a number in a other person's computer.
If the battery isn't in industrial production right now, forget about it, you wouldn't expect to see it on the shelf for another 10 years or so. The reason people use Li-Ion batteries is because for transport and electronics, they have the best densities, which matters because that means less energy is taken from the grid for transport.
Saying what needs to be said. If only we could get enough people to really hear what needs to be heard. Unfortunately it is a hard, scary message that most people will avoid until a more uncomfortable consequence occurs that is more uncomfortable than the message they are avoiding. .
Thanks Olivia. We need a rational approach to serious questions. If you don't throw Thorium in the mix, we will all be sitting around the hearth saying, "I remember when Grampa had electricity and Granma talked about trees."
Finally! It’s good to see some common sense pragmatism eventually making its way into the green debate. In my opinion, this is why we need to focus increasingly on the most energy dense source of energy we know of: Nuclear power
So glad to hear that all you're asking the world to do is to fundamentally change human nature. When so many of the powerful and the ignorant, rich and poor, refuse to see that there is a climate change problem, there is little hope of doing anything.
I truly believe that what she is saying is spot on and I back it one hundred percent. Now if we can just get the rich corporations who dominate the global economies and control the supply changes to stop being so greedy. That's the rub.
The ying to the yang of the human condition. I wish there was a way to identify and get rid of greed, narcissism, bullying and manipulation, and bad character. If we could identify and get rid of just one of those negative human conditions, then the nightly news, geopolitics, and daily life for each one of us would improve immensely.
@@Red_Proton "greed, narcissism, bullying and manipulation, and bad character" Thats all a point of view. Your point of view. Maybe your point of view is the wrong point of view? Ever heard of that one?
Hydrocarbons are the feature. The only long-term solution is to stay burning carbon fuel like gasoline. Where we need to get the hydrocarbons, not from fossil fuel but electrolysis to make hydrogen, and in some chemistry lessons, mixed with, drumroll, please, CO2 into Hydrocarbons. But we need nuclear energy. This is actually sustainable at the moment because modern reactors can use spent fuel from old-style nuclear reactors. So that might be a bridge technology to fission coming online.
In the case of vehicles, it is more efficient to put the power used in the electrolysis directly into a car battery, you get more bang for your buck that way.... :)
This speaker missed the elephant in the room (as almost everyone who talks about these topics do). That is that there aren't enough minable locations on the planet for many of these metals and minerals. It is not just that if we mine enough we will have enough to build a fully renewable future (as this speaker implies). The numbers have been done for metals like copper, lithium, and cobalt and we don't have areas sufficiently large to mine, period (not just that we haven't found but that are projected to ever even exist). This is well covered in other talks on RUclips by experts in mining if you search. Check out stuff by Mark Mills and, in particular, Dr. Simon Michaux to get familiar with the core problems.
While many assert it's impossible to mine enough to go green, there seems to be no shortage of places to frack gas or pump oil. Oil and gas are easy peasy. Mining minerals, impossible. Give us a break. Of course it can be done just as oil and gas are extracted.
Fortunately, lithium and cobalt aren't essential, they're just what we currently use... We are starting to use better alternatives already, like sodium batteries etc. If we assume that gen 1 'green tech' is as good as it gets, then you're right....
@@JeanPierreWhite Oil and gas are getting harder but humans did not develop our dependence on it because it was hard. Yes it was easy. There is not enough COPPER. There isn't. Easy copper was dug up in the bronze age. The hi grade and easily accessed is also gone. As the ore gets lower percentage the effort to extract doubles and quadruples. How much ENERGY will need to be expended to save ENERGY? At a point it gets counter productive.
What a brilliant presentation, highlighting the possible pitfalls of increased mineral mining. Also presenting a decent road map to avoid International conflict. But why doesn't Thorium-based modular reactors get a mention? It's a green energy source, safer than the existing nuclear reactors. It could give power to developing countries too.
Because it did not seem to me that she was focused on green alternatives to fossil fuels. IMO, she was focused on the dynamic power structure of between governments with desirable natural resources.
Agree with Red Proton (protons don't have color but whatever 😅), and also I can't really find anything speaking to the cost/kW of modular reactors. Solar and wind are cheap and getting cheaper. I think I understand all the befits of thorium-based modular reactors, including motlen salt reactors and liquid fluoride salt thorium reactors, and reading about then gets me excited, but if they're not cost competitive they just won't fly. Same goes for fusion, which I think would be awesome to achieve and for a long time thought would be the answer to unlimited energy, but now I don't think so just due to the low cost of other green options.
@@truhartwood3170 I agree with you up to a point. Renewables, wind and solar have a massive carbon footprint in production and are not recyclable. Last Christmas, Texas had severe weather and we're without power for 2 weeks. Germany backed the renewable energy route and closed carbon based fueled power stations. Only to discover it didn't meet their energy requirements. Hence they still use Russian gas. Australia are in the same situation warning of power cuts, because they decommissioned their power stations. Renewables on the whole I believe to be a short-term fix, with only a lifespan of around 20 years. The energy situation is a complete mess, and energy providers are fleecing the public, simply exploiting a situation created through poor government policy.
@@manfromatlantisX Solar panels are 90% recyclable by mass and produce 100X more energy than was used to create them. Gas has less energy in it than was used to creat it and is not recyclable after being burned. In fact, 1 gal of gas requires about 5kW to refine (just to refine, not pump the oil, transport it to the refinery, and then transport the gas to a station). That 5kW will power an EV just as far as that gallon of gas, but skipping all those other steps I mentioned, plus avoids burning the gas. 28GW of power was lost during the Texas grid failure from fossil fuel and nuclear plants. 24GW was from natural gas specifically, so that was by far the biggest culprit. 18GW was lost from renewables. The main, overarching problem was no one really winterized because Texas doesn't usually get that cold. No particular type of generation is significantly more at risk than another - they all work in Arctic conditions, you just have to plan for it. Solar and wind are half the cost of fossil fuel now, and still getting cheaper. So who's fleecing you? Probably the ones feeding you the baseless assertions you're regurgitating here. The grid should be over 50% renewable by 2026, so we don't need to wait long to see how it all plays out. Anyway I'm already bored. Go do more research.
A very good talk, thank you. However, it seems to me, that something very important was missing from decarbonization plans: sink carbon in soils and vegetation. Which will be possible (yes, it is proven by research and practice) by sustainable agriculture and reforestation with diverse selection of local trees and re-greening badly degraded areas.
Storing carbon in soil might not work because it's temporary and might be released later on depending on microbial activity, droughts , floods , climate change , cultivation practices etc.
I doubt that any amount of tree planting can sink all that fossil carbon back into the ground. Seriously though, I think the focus of this talk is about decarbonization of energy. Repairing the damage already done is a huge other topic. She has a 20 minute limit.
@@richardstubbs6484 imposing your ignorance on others might not work because ignorance is temporary as we learn more each day than the last. There's always lots of variables, so what? Lots of documented examples of raising and lowering carbon content in soils. Start with Gabe Brown and Alan Savory for raising; and for lowering see every field that sees the plow, the 'green revolution', synthetics, animal de stocking, or excess grazing. The land is way way bigger than the oil wells and way way way bigger than any goofy, wasteful machine built to capture carbon. More carbon = healthier, more productive soil. Soil is all we've really got, and all we've ever fought for. We not only should, we have to, and we will.
I know that our solutions will have unintended consequences. And i accept them. Those unintended consequences are better than the Alternative of doing nothing.
They are not leading the way; they are capitalizing on the move. There is a big difference. They are opening more coal mines and more coal fired plants every year at an alarming rate. They also tend to strip the landscape bare in any place they set up a factory e.g. Africa. They will cut down every tree, eat every animal, and kill off any tribe that objects.
Breathing is unhealthy due to air pollution Slowing down is only possible where there are traffic hams. Making peace is impossible while the poor has to keep making babies to serve as labour for the greedy. So its time to think, to act and to improve (not "develop", which is the economists' newspeak.)
My 1989 minivan weighs a bit over 3000 pounds, a 2022 same brand electric minivan weighs over 4500 pounds. To carry with you such weight and energy storage is not the way to go. I predict there will be a merge with the power line and the transportation network in the near future so vehicles will not have to carry a reserve of energy. Also a suspended structure would not be affected by snow storms or floods; snow removal and potholes would be a thing of the past. We took the wrong direction with car batteries, this is only a flash in the pan. We need to live differently, have less and have a higher quality of life; for this we also need very good all encompassing environmental design.
Very good talk ! I love the concept of "Ecological Diplomacy". Even if we can see that, with dictators like Putin, we are far from seeing such a global behavior leading our international relationships. One thing is obvious. In front of the global warming, the loss of biodiversity, the soils depletion we have to change our direction at 180° ! All our activities need at a moment or another natural resources and energy. Needless to say that we will have less and less energy (the transition will only delay the moment where we will have less external energy available) and less raw materials (we are living in FINITE world). We have known a world with 100% of renewable energies. It was before 1800 and the industrial revolution. In those times we were only 500 millions inhabitants. Life expectancy was around 35 years. Personnaly I don't want to go back to those ages, but we will have to renounce to many many many things !
I must respectfully disagree. Too fragile, too high a risk in case of failure, and a major long-term waste problem, just to throw in a few of the reasons why.
Even though I live in the US I am originally from Brazil, a huge player in this process, that was treated with total disrespect in the last year , opening a huge door for China . It is sad , but politics can destroy, with one deslastrou move , years of work from people like the one we just heard . 😢
@@BadNessie You have much to learn. The problems you suggest are moot and have been misrepresented ad nauseam. This is PRECISELY why green growth discussions should always include nuclear possibilities.
I think it depends on where you are thinking of building nuclear power plants. On stable lands, with almost no earthquake and other natural disasters, nuclear is such a possibility. However, the risk increases in other places more vulnerable to natural disasters (referring to my home country, Japan). In case of tsunami, (which is what happened in the Fukushima explosion), it was simply beyond what humans can capable of handling. Although I acknowledge that there's human error aspect to it, in how to respond to the emergency, it's also true that the damages from tsunami was too huge that even experts could not do anything about it. So yeah I just think we need to be careful when considering nuclear options and do holistic and detailed research on the landscape prior to the plan.
@@LTVoyager Okay, maybe I should start with explaining what I mean by fragile. I think we can all agree that yes, radiation exists in nature and we're all alive despite that fact, but too much radiation per time-period will cause severe damage in humans, animals, plants, the vast majority of living things. A nuclear reactor is nothing but a sophisticated steam engine. Only that radioactive heavy metals contained by metal rods are used to heat up the water so that a turbine system is being moved to generate electricity. Put enough rods close enough together in the water and the radiation of the radioactive materials inside the rods will activate more of the same material to do more of the same, which results in the production of heat. Here comes the fragile part: put too much of it together too closely, or don't cool it down properly (by re-feeding cooler water back within the system), the material gets activated more and more, produces more and more heat, up to a point of no return, which is called meltdown. It's called that because that's exactly what happens. It heats up to a point that is changing the state of aggregation from solid to liquid to plasma, which will cut through basically any material you may have tried to contain it with, following gravity. And it won't stop anytime soon, it can do that for thousands of years without noticably slowing down. At that point at the latest, large amounts of radiation will exit the system, causing damage in living things. Not to mention the risk of contaminated water leaving the system etc. The number of potential reasons that lead to any failure within this fragile system is endless. Human error being the most common one. Chernobyl: failure in cooling system, caused by human error. Fukushima: failure in cooling system caused by power failure caused by a Tsunami of which the size no one expected, human error. Zaporizhzhia (and no, nothing too bad of which we know has happened there - yet): humans are currently throwing bombs in close range of the nuclear power plant. And it doesn't even matter, *which side* does. Humans do.
We measure a well know technology that has been around for more than 100 years with a new one that hit the market just 10-15 years ago and has a rapid evolution no where close to the existing one. We already have launched batteries that don't need most of materials mentioned and others that are 99.9% recyclable and don't even need earth mining the Sodium ion battery already in production. It all comes to what our goal is the solutions are already in market the whole point is if we want huge profits or a bright future.
The panic of yelling Climate Emergency will only make things worse. We need to take our time to make sure we know the consequence of our action before moving forward. There are no perfect, over simplified solutions, only trade offs.
Very interesting cuts, seriously. But when you said "to reboot the hydrological cycle", "planetary breakdown" and "the existence of humanity" I had to think I am at a cult gathering.
Your team appears to have a blind spot when it comes to human nature. There has always been global conflict so it’s safe to presume there always will be global conflict. That means we need innovation so we can make the transition even with the conflict.
@@Red_Proton She is turning a blind eye to human nature and consumer driven economy. Consumers drive all economies and you can change their behavior by presenting better options or by government force, take your pick.
@@davidking4779 I can see your point, but I don't think she's turning a blind eye to human nature and consumer driven economy. On the contrary, she speaking directly to that by point in two ways: 1) giving a [TED Talk] presentation directly to the people, and 2) sharing the knowledge without marketing filters and hype. I mean, she didn't say that outright, but does she have to? I think her actions speak for themselves.
@@Red_Proton She does address the negative side of going carbon free and I do appreciate that. I always question" at what cost and to whom?" The USA has decided to step down as a world leader and as a US citizen I worry about that.
@@davidking4779 Yes, good questions to consider regarding most things. We are seeing firsthand the shift in economies because of a shift in consumer demand, which leads to a shift in geopolitics and a shift in natural resources valuable to the [next] economy.
Conclusion should not be more netzero action but less and more adaptation. We should do what humanity does best: adapt. Humans live in hot, cold, wet and dry climate regions. Adaptation works.
One needs to remember Einstein's theory on the conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another. This is very true, and we must realize what the results of this transfromation will be. We may have negative effects from the use of fossil fuels, but we will also have negative effects from the use of renewables. It will take centuries to see these effects, good luck on this utopian dream.
This is great! However, while the most rich men on Earth are getting richer from whatever kind of exploitation is going on and will not give up their hold on wealth for the sake of humanity we’re holding the short end of the stick…
There is a profound difference between the extraction and use of carbon resources ( such as coal, oil and natural gas), and the extraction and use of minerals ( such as lithium and nickel) for batteries. Carbon resources are consumed by their use, putting carbon into the atmosphere in the process. But once the minerals for batteries have been mined, it becomes cheaper to recycle old batteries than it is to make new ones from freshly mined minerals. Battery materials are perfectly (and economically) recyclable. They are not consumed by their use, unlike carbon resources.
Very informative talk! I am so glad we have intelligent people thinking about these critical logistical issues. I believe that if we take longer to convert from fossil fuel to renewable energy, we will avoid the abrupt volatility that such a transition will cause. Switching 100% carbon neutral goals in 20-years to 80% carbon neutral goals in 100 years can be much easier on world economies. Climate change is NOT the emergency being claimed by alarmists.
yes you are. Nuclear powered cars isn't an option. They will go electric. We can debate where the elctricity will come from, but minerals will be needed.
The realities of Tantalum mining in the Congo and the lack of knowledge in America about that are a big part of why I couldn't commit to finishing my electrical engineering degree. It's a huge blind money grab for tech companies.
hahaha, ahh. Speaking of lack of knowledge. Silicon Solar PV (most is) -- requires ZERO Tantalum. Maybe you should have stuck around and actually learned the topic?
It's great that she points out all the interrelated problems with achieving a green transition, but I'm afraid she's missing the biggest one - that it's physically impossible.
And THAT is absolutely correct! The problem is that people don't do their homework (I guess not even the speaker). I liked the stuff by Dr. Simon Michaux concerning that exact topic. I guess just let them dream until reality comes crashing down all around them.
@@dionysusnow No. Impossible is the wrong word but it's so infeasible that it's highly unlikely we are going to meaningfully decarbonize on the timeframe governments are setting themselves (in the way they plan on doing it - important point there). To put things into context, according to the IEA, in order to decarbonize (as world governments want to with solar and wind) we would have to increase critical mineral production and processing by about ~200-2000% (it varies and depends on the mineral). It takes 10 - 20 years to bring new mines in service. Investment into new mines is too low to meet demand and the amount of energy it takes to extract minerals is phenomenal (mean energy cost for copper is 36 GJ/kg as an example); such that to mine and process we will be burning natural gas and diesel fuel to do it. So, we could do it the way governments seemingly intend on doing it, but it would come at such a great cost. Not just everyones industrial capacity dedicated to green energy, but industrial capcity that doesn't even exist. Mountains would disspear, forests get ran over, huge quantities of diesel the likes of which we have never consumed before to run machinery and transport. And we'd have 5 years on average to do it before 2040 because as i said it takes 10-20 years to bring new mines up. The pirnciple however, of decarbonizing, is absolutely not crazy at all. We have Hydro, Geothermal and Nuclear as long term permanent solutions, and if we didtched oil and coal electricity for Natural gas (combined cycle) so that we could appropriately ramp into solar and wind at a feasible speed it's certainly doable by say 2050-2060. If we electrify and use more mass transit once we implement more alenatives like nuclear we could also do wonders.
@@klondike444 OK if you didn't say those specific words. You assert it's impossible to transition to renewables. What happens when the non renewables run out? What will happen then? Remember it's impossible to transition, how would we not be screwed?
What is missing from Olivia's narrative is stabilizing the human population size. The challenge is how? Yet, this is the main factor (in my opinion) to achieve decarbonization and with it a sustainable development.
I do understand the complexity of the energy market, but in all fairness it’s a big difference between extracting a mineral once that can be recycled and used over and over again (urban mining) and oil and gas that you can burn once. Sustainable is the key word for me.
This was addressed in the video, we are nowhere near a circular recycling economy. Even if we had perfect circular recycling economy, increases in population or product consumption would mean more mining.
It's amazing how easy it has been to convince seemingly sentient individual that less CO2 in the atmosphere will make the planet greener. Please review your grade school science book, the chapter on plants and photosynthesis.
Very interesting talk. We need to go carbonfree but with this talk in mind is there anything renewable in for example off shore windturbines with all that material needed and only a lifespan of 15 years? But if managing every country's resources for green energy in a Global Public Good Regime is a must for this to be solved, we will never solve this.
It’s amazing that someone so connected to the status quo, can only see the future in terms of the past. There’s zero chance that the global power structure can/will allow sovereign governments to restrict the supply of critical materials without war. The great African tribesman said, “…he who has salt, also has war”. Here’s an idea worth spreading, “ let’s eliminate the need for energy… by design”!!!
The biggest challenge to making the world a better place may have always been our basic nature: we persue what we want right now over pursuing what we want most. Does anyone see a change in human nature on the horizon?
Nuclear still requires a bit more material than the current fossil fuel infrastructure (and there are political challenges with much of the known uranium reserves being in Russia and Kazakhstan), even if much less than a world powered entirely by solar and wind. Unfortunately, the same fundamental problem applies, in that if we are to decarbonize, we need to replace our current fossil fuel services with electricity-based alternatives (some of which will be nuclear powered), and there simply aren't enough mineral (especially metal) resources available to have an electricity based car fleet (etc.) of the same size as today's ICE car fleet - at least not for more than a few decades of this century. That is, you need to replace and expand a lot of the consumption side, not just the power generation side. The implication is that some sort of degrowth or other similar reduction of energy demand is required in tandem with decarbonization. This is going to be VERY difficult politically and economically - it's nice to see someone paying attention to the political side of this challenge. (I'm not saying that it's going to work; just that if we want to try head towards net zero, something along these lines is going to be required.)
@@davidbarry6900 this TED talk certainly makes me think that we need more Nuclear, we need to get Fusion to work and get it commercialised, and we need to be looking more at a hydrogen or ammonia based system for ICEs (including air and shipping) rather than batteries and rare-earth magnet based motor systems
Nuclear design innovation has been deliberately held back by regulations in the name of safety and nuclear nonproliferation. It is an almost impossible situation to rectify. Wind, solar, storage, transmission are cheaper and easier. It was a great mistake to close down nuclear and fossil fuel extraction prior to ramping up the green power sources.
Thank you for shedding light on this huge greenwashed blindspot. I am from one of the geopolitical hot-spots: Myanmar. We have the world's third largest source of mined rare earths, and guess who is mining it? If you guessed China, you'd be correct. China is our neighbor, but it is not a good one, and we should be getting help feom the western countries, but help is not coming in urgency the way the western countries are making climate change a global emergency. We see the hypocracy of climate politics from politicians and we hope better understanding from this video will change that soon.
China is the only country soiling their own to refine rare earth minerals. You are of course free to build your own refinery. Its not hard. Just extremely dirty.
I agree with all her geopolitical concerns about unintended consequences IF we continue to try building EV's that rely on cobalt etc, but the reality is the world is moving away from rare earth's due to price - and EV's now can use LFP, sodium, and are working towards aluminium-graphene (or probably aluminium-hemp!) or aluminium-sulfur. These resources are SUPER-abundant. She needs to revisit her primary assumptions about renewable technology.
Sssshhh! People want to hyperfocus on lithium and cobalt despite the fact we don't really need them! ;) While pretending that mining them is worse than mining coal and oil.....
Don't sweat, Ma'am. If it is not economically viable, it won't happen. No one will bankrupt themselves to give you blue skies. Neither will people use less energy. Green or any other colour, energy use will increase
Some of the concrns are invalid Rare Earths are not that rare, only currently there is not much mining capacity built out for them. True, that those build-outs should have started already. Lithium-ion batteries will not be the main driver of the grid transformation. Natrium-ion batteries will be and those are not supply chain limited at all. Cobalt is being driven out of modern, high-energy lithium ion battery chemistries. Low-energy li-ion chemistries dont use cobalt even today. LFP
Degrowth means death to millions and I doubt you’ll be volunteering. Technology inevitably brings accelerating economic growth and an accelerating demand for resources. That is a fact of human life. An age of abundance and wealth is what enables humans to care for their environment. Chaos and poverty leads to the opposite.
@@paulmcgreevy3011 Didn't you imply that degrowth means poverty, death and an inability to care for the environment? Please take your own advice and do some research.
Beginning of the video was good. We have an issue with the current technologies. We need more advances in technology that don't rely on rare earth metals before we fully attempt to decarbonize. Governments are forcing this issue before it's ready. Both scientists and governments often get things wrong. Where this video fails is the idea of a "Global Public Good Regime." Sounds exactly like centralized planning with a single world government. No thanks. There isn't a single successful example of central planning being effective in history beyond small communes. Humans just aren't smart enough to handle all the variables. When this has been tried at scale, people starve to death, get purged, experience economic collapse, etc. She is right that we are headed for a disaster because of rare earth mineral mining and the geo-political climate. The solution is to slow down the process and let the technologies catch up. For the last 30 years, the doomsayer predictions have all been overstated. We have time to get it right. I'm going to keep beating the nuclear drum. It's the only technology we have in place today that would reduce carbon usage in the short term.
There’s all sorts of research going on into alternatives to lithium/cobalt/etc for battery storage. Sand is a really promising one. There’s simply not enough of those minerals in the world anyway to realistically support a worldwide Green transition.
So you say it's better to relocate further toward the Earth's poles because your house might end up in the middle of a desert due to global warming? Oh and that's if you survive the hunger from crop failure. Also you'd have to compete with a bunch of people who try to do the same. By a bunch of people I mean most of Africa, Latin America and India. Yeah.. that's not really a viable solution in my book.
Although I think what she has to say is important, I think the discussion regarding globalism is naive. Balance of power and competition between nations keep governments in check and keep us from a single global totalitarian government (i.e. utopia is the vision, but where humans are involved we end up with dystopia)
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m impressed how she connected the dots of peace and conflict resolution and decarbonization leading to sustainable green growth while balancing geopolitics and global order that respect human rights and international law. Well done for giving this TED talk
What planet are you on. 🙄
She's saying there is no such thing as green growth
I was impressed by so much word salad in such a short time.
Go green, go hungry.
The carbon /toxicity boot print of the military industrial complex anybody?
And that's, my dear friends, is why nuclear energy should NEVER be ruled out in a serious debate about decarbonization. It is the most dense energy source we currently know, and therefore the one which uses less materials to produce a certain amount of electricity. Plus, the high-temperature steam can also be employed in industrial processes for producing hydrogen, amonia, steel, and so many other products. That way, it directly replaces gas and coal in the so-called "hard-to-decarbonize" industry sectors.
Nuclear simply isn't safe, and humans have proven incapable of operating it in anywhere close to the safest way possible. Notice a nuclear power plant has been under military attack for months now. Trusting humans with nuclear is like trusting toddlers with hand grenades.
Bingo!!!
Uranium ore exports to every country's nuclear industries and 150,000 SMRs worldwide ??
CO2 nonproliferation yes
Nuclear proliferation yes
Military defence budgets exploding yes
?
Nuclearis stupid? Yes.
Nuclear will be locked in for 60years because of the Government involvement.
All vehicles will be electric with in 20years.
All vehicles will be automatically plugged into the national power grid.
Billions of mWatts daily available.
Most vehicles are parked 23hrs every day.
Most people do not think beyond what they know.
?
Yes. Bingo.
Nuclear will be locked in for 60years because of the Government involvement.
All vehicles will be electric with in 20years.
All vehicles will be automatically plugged into the national power grid.
Billions of mWatts daily available.
Most vehicles are parked 23hrs every day.
@Fred Wills The by products of nuclear energy are trivial. The sum of all waste products would fill a single stadium . Nuclear fuel can be reprocessed or it can be thrown down shafts into stable Earth. Nuclear reactions rearely get all the energy out, sometimes you are left with ~90% energy remaining. That would be equivalent to trillions of barrels of energy available for re-use. That's the logic behind a lot of Gen IV reactor designs and breeder reactors, hence fuel is also not in that short of a supply. In addition, there is something like 3x as much terrestrial thorium as there is Uranium.
This TED talks is extremely clear!!
Finally someone speaks straight to the point!!👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
TED stands for Taking Every Dime!
Would be interesting to see the data sources for the maps
The IEA quote that an electric car requires SIX TIMES MORE MINERAL INPUT THAN A GAS CAR
is (& is meant to be) misleading.
It assumes that the gasoline needed to run the car during its entire life is NOT A MINERAL INPUT.
The whole point of an electric car is that it avoids that GIGANTIC & GHG generating input.
This is not an honest TED talk.
@@jimvj5897 minerals = metals in this case, since both needs to be mined out first, i think it's not really misleading
@@jimvj5897 Yes. This talk is dishonest, misleading, and does a disservice to all of us.
Very good! I'm so happy this topic is finally getting the attention needed. I've been talking for years about the shortcomings of just changing our energy sources, without caring for the geopolitical and ecological consequences. This is exactly where I think some climate leaders, like Greta (and I do respect her a lot), are faultering. As said in the lecture, the climate crisis should be tackled seriously, taking into account all relevant factors, and based on science. We urgently need to stop making decisions based on what we feel like is the right thing to do. And also stop oversimplifying this problem as if it were only a matter of "they don't want to act". Let's fight for our planet, it's harder than might look like and takes more concessions than some leaders are willing to do.
@Peter from NZ Totally agree, Peter. Although the political system here in Brazil is very messed up, but I think your analysis does apply quite well to developed nations where the public institutions are credible.
Greta doesn’t understand anything. Stop treating us like idiots: we want to see debates between climate scientists, not Greta’s nonsense.
It's all bs. A purposely designed plan too enslave humanity with the end goal being massive depopulation
Unfortunately, no matter the geopolitical situation, the climate is a dire emergency, and the only rational move at this point is to decarbonize ASAP and worry about the consequences later- or maybe handle them as we decarbonize. Where we can avoid trickly geopolitical situations while decarbonizing, great, but we should not slow our decarbonization to any meaningful degree for any reason except one that would cause mass suffering.
this post and all comments before and after mine are bots made by democrats
Sadly, best video ever for the promotion of nuclear energy without ever mentioning it
Nuclear energy isn't sustainable, unless someone has come up with an idea on what to do with nuclear waste (or how to stop wars, sabotage, or natural catastrophes from ever occurring again).
@@SibylleLeon It is actually sustainable as Bill Gates is funding projects to use nuclear waste as fuel for the reactors and it has seen good progress.
@@mohammedsaquibkhan2592 And has he also found a way to eliminate earthquakes, war, and human error / malice?
@Sibylle Leon Nope. That's not as easy as it sounds and i guess we'll never achieve global peace.
bahahahahahahahahahhahahH yeeeeahhhhh, let’s cover the world in nuclear power plants.
I apologize but I feel like that does not pass the smell test.
Like what, your just gonna put nuclear power plants alllllll over this shifting world? Like wouldn’t they eventually break and be bad. Don’t they require humans to work?
Amen! This is happening not far from where I live. They’ve started mining for Li under the only lake where I live and one in thousands in miles. And companies are doing so for electronic car batteries. We’re destroying the environment in attempt to save it. Should the lake run dry from global warming or collapse from Lithium mining? It’s a controversy in my town.
And why would you not tell us the name & location of this (supposed) lake?
@@jimvj5897 Because that would reveal where I live and I prefer privacy
@@missylks1239 Sure. If you said southern Nevada, anyone could immediately find your house? Got it.
You're making the usual mistake. You are equating some possible environmental damage in a tiny area with the wrecking of the entire biosphere of planet Earth. You are off by a factor of about 100 million.
@@missylks1239 just commenting here to say that I understand and support your desire for privacy.
I think she identifies the problems very well. Her solution of collective world government to share and allocate these resources is completely impractical and will NEVER happen.
right. but that world govmt is what us imperialism aspires to, which brought with it the sociecological wiked problems of the present. instead of collective world govermnt id propose enabling local autonomy for the management of the commons, overruling private property rights
@@floresrevueltas That is also extremely unlikely.
@@henriquecesardesouzasilva8766 sure, because autonomy for the management of the commons has never existed. the obshchina in now-russia, the ayllu in Andes, calpulli in México, the agbegbe in now-Nigeria, the ke'eng in Himalayas... are all MADE-UP socioecological systems that DID NOT sustain societies through somewhat democratic decision making over the collective work and land.
but regarding the forecasted situation... in an era of reduced energy availability, the imperial control over world's resources will recede, and so communities' chances to take back control of their metabolism and land will grow.
so i wouldnt say highly unlikely
Between the collapse of the biosphere and world government, the latter is highly practical and incidentally necessary to stay alive.
@@floresrevueltas ya that always works out and creates human rights and open societies
So glad to see this side of the Renewable transition being discussed! The mainstream fascination and uncritical belief in Green Growth are worrying and it's great to see how you come around many nuances of the situation from political to ecological.
Not mentioned, but very good news, is that all these decarbonizing minerals can be recycled, unlike fossils fuels which are simply burned and emitted into the atmosphere.
And the more we extract them to decarbonize industry and transportation, the less environmentally damaging it becomes to extract them.
It is a beneficial feedback loop that does not eliminate but reduces the problem.
EG) Mining lithium is very carbon emitting. But the more lithium we mine for green tech, the less carbon is emitted when mining lithium.
Solar panels and wind turbine blades are not recyclable. Both have somewhat fixed lifespans.
@@calvinguyer8010 Your information is out of date.
Nate Hagens on The Great Simplification channel has done years of research and incredibly thorough productions on this, it’s many angles and other related energy topics. Can’t recommend him highly enough.
i found this talk incredibly useful and so different from many science, technology, finance or countries; policies talks about Climate Change. we can only solve climate together and understanding that and looking at the global geo-politics, it becomes clear what will help us arrive there. Thank you, Olivia!
"....we can only solve climate...." lol. Why does climate need to be "solved"? And, how would you go about "solving" climate?
2:04 I love the photo showing how much ore is removed with a lump to represent how much metal is extracted. It gets at the idea of extraction, how enormous it is. But it would be good to also show how much room tailings ponds take up and how these ponds need to be monitored 24/7/365 for leaks because toxic chemicals are used to leach out metal from most of the ore. I heard the volume of the tailings ponds is ten times as much as the original ore. That means the spent ore would never fit back into this big hole.
I have a hunch that a thousand years ago they didn't use these chemicals to extract metal. They would have had to choose only the richest ore to extract but it would have been much safer for the environment. We can look at ways to go back to that, for the sake of the environment. We need to research and find ways to stop using these acids and chemicals for the initial stages of refining this ore.
The spent ore could certainly be fit back into the hole. The pond is not the ore. The pond could be evaporated, leaving whatever solutes it contained, and these could go back in the hole. Mining can be done in ways that do not destroy the environment; it just costs more money.
Drain the ancient underground water table and fill it with toxic chemicals. Is there something I'm missing here?
The carbon /toxicity boot print of the military industrial complex anybody?
and that photo is consider as a great yield. Usually its about 5-25% of the dug soil/rock is refined to usable material. Like for example Uranium in Canada have ore grade of 16.36%, Nigeria 2.64%, Kazachstan have mines from 0.013% to 0.75%, Australia 0.057%, Namibia from 0.034% to 0.052% and these are one the biggest mines on the world (for uranium). But on the flip side something like aluminum (bauxit ore) have yield 50% and higher but the refining is quite difficult and costly, but when you have the pure metal the recycling/re-melting is easy.
A thousand years ago, there were about 350 M people on the entire planet, or about one for every 20 people today. They really didn't need very much in the way of metals. Yes, they only took the richest ore, because they had no way of finding better. And no, they didn't use "these chemicals" because they knew very little indeed about chemistry.
The only thing that you can be absolutely sure of is that they didn't give a damn about the environment. What's your point? 😉
Thank you! My friends and I have been talking about a shift/change in global power(s) and how natural resources play a big part in that. She needs to give this speech on the nightly news… everyday. America(ns) is not prepared to be demoted from a first-world country, and denying this shift in global power won’t stop it from happening.
A good framing of the problem, but I think overall it's more helpful to put it in context with the rest of the Human Predicament, to see that this too is subject to the intractable multipolar traps and impossible economic imperatives that underly so many of the major interconnected and insoluble problems we face today that compose the Predicament.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Moloch is the killer in her ideas. Culture is upstream to all of these issues and if we have a culture that is obsessed with identity and consumption but lacks in compassion and connection it’s never going to work. Plus simply labelling one of the solutions as “science” fails to capture the hyper object that is climate change or the scientific method. The last two years should have proven that to everyone.
The best discussion of this is the 5 part series of podcasts between Nathan John Hagens and Daniel Schmachtenberger.
Concisely and forcefully put. It also shows how much has to change if we are to survive the re-coupling of growth (even much slower, circular-economy growth) to rare earth and mineral extraction. On the global level, even. Insightful indeed.
Wow. What an eye and brain opening talk. Every leader of every G12 country needs to see this.
if they are not aware they are incompetent.
They are aware of this, that's why they are sending Ukraine weapons and trying to limit Chinese imports.
@@lamcho00 and as a side note, hundreds of young innocent men are dying.
Lithium Iron Phosphate and Sodium Ion batteries can alleviate the extraction concerns for Cobalt, Nickel, and Lithium.
But then it doesn’t help wish creating the global control system she wants to empower and negates her narrative.
Yes and no. LFP does not use Cobalt, but it does use Lithium. LFP batteries use twice as much copper when compared to NMC. No chemistry is perfect.
I hear pie in the sky dreaming here. She describes a world where all parties reject their self-interest for collective interests. That isn't going to happen, because it never happens that way. This isn't a Kumbaya world, green dreams or not.
You do realize you are basically saying: let's not just continue but keep increasing: climate catastrophe, war, destruction and death.
He’s not saying that.. he’s saying that it’s just realistically not going to happen… unfortunately he’s right
Anyone who has given up, has already lost.
Anyone who keeps fighting still has a chance to succeed.
The alternative is catastrophic, there is no pretence that this acting in collective interest will be easy, it's going to be incredibly difficult. There is a first time for everything and this could be the first time humanity steps up to the challenge of seeing that collective interest IS self interest. But yeah realistically there are going to be huge challenges and setbacks
@@gonesailabout9669 yep, correct. self-interest is human nature when push comes to shove.
Good News: There are many research projects underway to generate and store Green Energy that are not mineral intensive. The biggest obstacle may be the wealthiest people who have a vested interest in Lithium batteries.
Until we get a handle on greed this will be a difficult road. Beautiful earth! Let's protect it!
You deliver excellent content to your audience. It's very interesting material. All of your effort put into creating this video is much appreciated. I'm truly grateful for your help!
Scary way of setting us up for global rule by technocratic elite.
What about a campaign to shift mentality away from the massive consumerism we have now? You can't have people replacing their gadgets every 2 months without unsustainable pressure on supply chains and the environment.
quit your job , stop driving and drop out ... live in the woods and do your part for the health of the planet .. if you feel so strong about consuming .... dont sauy "we" when you are part of the imaginary problem , ...... yea just as i thought .. talking crap ... and you are not willing your self to stop "massive consumption " you will shruge it off and hope someone else does the virtue of saving the planet ...
tell you what ... sell your house .. sell your car , stop having kids or make a definite plan not to have any ...
What about… what about …. What about learning how to stay on topic?
yes, engineering a change in the fundamental nature of humanity sounds much more feasible than developing alternative energy sources we've already more or less identified.
@@jedinxf7 reconsider your definition of fundamental.
@@izitmepattavina8651 the level of consumerism is very different in different countries
Word. It is wishful thinking that the world will come together for the sake of peace and saving the planet. All indications currently are the opposite.
In the meantime the world moves on with LFP batteries without Cobalt, Nickel and Manganese or Sodium Ion batteries made from salt after desalination of sea water... Keep looking forward.
Precisely. Also Lithium for 400 million cars can be extracted in a tidy way from mineral aquifers in the Rhine valley, so relax.
We're late, there will be delays so we need to cut down consumption and that must crash money system. But money is just a number in a other person's computer.
@@AndreasDelleske I would mine the Erzgerbirge. More Lithium, easier and cheaper to extract.
And it’s also why we don’t want to give power to bureaucrats like her who are doom and gloom and want to micromanage people.
If the battery isn't in industrial production right now, forget about it, you wouldn't expect to see it on the shelf for another 10 years or so. The reason people use Li-Ion batteries is because for transport and electronics, they have the best densities, which matters because that means less energy is taken from the grid for transport.
Regardless of the battery composition, the battery has to be recharged regularly and replaced often.
Saying what needs to be said. If only we could get enough people to really hear what needs to be heard. Unfortunately it is a hard, scary message that most people will avoid until a more uncomfortable consequence occurs that is more uncomfortable than the message they are avoiding.
.
There is a reason why sodium batteries are on track. Interesting talk.
Thanks Olivia. We need a rational approach to serious questions.
If you don't throw Thorium in the mix, we will all be sitting around
the hearth saying, "I remember when Grampa had electricity and
Granma talked about trees."
Finally! It’s good to see some common sense pragmatism eventually making its way into the green debate. In my opinion, this is why we need to focus increasingly on the most energy dense source of energy we know of: Nuclear power
very, very good! I hope the world is listening!
So glad to hear that all you're asking the world to do is to fundamentally change human nature. When so many of the powerful and the ignorant, rich and poor, refuse to see that there is a climate change problem, there is little hope of doing anything.
I truly believe that what she is saying is spot on and I back it one hundred percent. Now if we can just get the rich corporations who dominate the global economies and control the supply changes to stop being so greedy. That's the rub.
Greed will never be controlled! Then… Plan around that. That’s why the political environmental movement is totally insane.
The ying to the yang of the human condition. I wish there was a way to identify and get rid of greed, narcissism, bullying and manipulation, and bad character. If we could identify and get rid of just one of those negative human conditions, then the nightly news, geopolitics, and daily life for each one of us would improve immensely.
@@icjulia2 "political environmental movement" Whats that? Never heard of those.
@@Red_Proton "greed, narcissism, bullying and manipulation, and bad character" Thats all a point of view. Your point of view. Maybe your point of view is the wrong point of view? Ever heard of that one?
@@wolfgangpreier9160 It’s painfully obvious that you’re trolling. SMH.
Hydrocarbons are the feature. The only long-term solution is to stay burning carbon fuel like gasoline. Where we need to get the hydrocarbons, not from fossil fuel but electrolysis to make hydrogen, and in some chemistry lessons, mixed with, drumroll, please, CO2 into Hydrocarbons. But we need nuclear energy. This is actually sustainable at the moment because modern reactors can use spent fuel from old-style nuclear reactors. So that might be a bridge technology to fission coming online.
In the case of vehicles, it is more efficient to put the power used in the electrolysis directly into a car battery, you get more bang for your buck that way.... :)
All we need to do to control weather is sacrifice people. That is what I heard underlying this TED talk.
Spot on!
You heard correctly!
How many atrocities has the world seen that were justified by those words " For the greater good "?
All of them based on the idea that my good is greater than yours
@@simongross3122 Or just give me the power over all of you and I will make everything fair. I promise.
@@pjeverly Yep
This speaker missed the elephant in the room (as almost everyone who talks about these topics do). That is that there aren't enough minable locations on the planet for many of these metals and minerals. It is not just that if we mine enough we will have enough to build a fully renewable future (as this speaker implies). The numbers have been done for metals like copper, lithium, and cobalt and we don't have areas sufficiently large to mine, period (not just that we haven't found but that are projected to ever even exist). This is well covered in other talks on RUclips by experts in mining if you search. Check out stuff by Mark Mills and, in particular, Dr. Simon Michaux to get familiar with the core problems.
While many assert it's impossible to mine enough to go green, there seems to be no shortage of places to frack gas or pump oil. Oil and gas are easy peasy. Mining minerals, impossible.
Give us a break. Of course it can be done just as oil and gas are extracted.
Fortunately, lithium and cobalt aren't essential, they're just what we currently use...
We are starting to use better alternatives already, like sodium batteries etc.
If we assume that gen 1 'green tech' is as good as it gets, then you're right....
@@JeanPierreWhite Oil and gas are getting harder but humans did not develop our dependence on it because it was hard. Yes it was easy.
There is not enough COPPER.
There isn't.
Easy copper was dug up in the bronze age.
The hi grade and easily accessed is also gone.
As the ore gets lower percentage the effort to extract doubles and quadruples.
How much ENERGY will need to be expended to save ENERGY?
At a point it gets counter productive.
What a brilliant presentation, highlighting the possible pitfalls of increased mineral mining. Also presenting a decent road map to avoid International conflict. But why doesn't Thorium-based modular reactors get a mention? It's a green energy source, safer than the existing nuclear reactors. It could give power to developing countries too.
Because it did not seem to me that she was focused on green alternatives to fossil fuels. IMO, she was focused on the dynamic power structure of between governments with desirable natural resources.
Agree with Red Proton (protons don't have color but whatever 😅), and also I can't really find anything speaking to the cost/kW of modular reactors. Solar and wind are cheap and getting cheaper. I think I understand all the befits of thorium-based modular reactors, including motlen salt reactors and liquid fluoride salt thorium reactors, and reading about then gets me excited, but if they're not cost competitive they just won't fly. Same goes for fusion, which I think would be awesome to achieve and for a long time thought would be the answer to unlimited energy, but now I don't think so just due to the low cost of other green options.
@@truhartwood3170 I agree with you up to a point. Renewables, wind and solar have a massive carbon footprint in production and are not recyclable. Last Christmas, Texas had severe weather and we're without power for 2 weeks. Germany backed the renewable energy route and closed carbon based fueled power stations. Only to discover it didn't meet their energy requirements. Hence they still use Russian gas. Australia are in the same situation warning of power cuts, because they decommissioned their power stations. Renewables on the whole I believe to be a short-term fix, with only a lifespan of around 20 years. The energy situation is a complete mess, and energy providers are fleecing the public, simply exploiting a situation created through poor government policy.
@@manfromatlantisX Solar panels are 90% recyclable by mass and produce 100X more energy than was used to create them. Gas has less energy in it than was used to creat it and is not recyclable after being burned. In fact, 1 gal of gas requires about 5kW to refine (just to refine, not pump the oil, transport it to the refinery, and then transport the gas to a station). That 5kW will power an EV just as far as that gallon of gas, but skipping all those other steps I mentioned, plus avoids burning the gas.
28GW of power was lost during the Texas grid failure from fossil fuel and nuclear plants. 24GW was from natural gas specifically, so that was by far the biggest culprit. 18GW was lost from renewables. The main, overarching problem was no one really winterized because Texas doesn't usually get that cold. No particular type of generation is significantly more at risk than another - they all work in Arctic conditions, you just have to plan for it.
Solar and wind are half the cost of fossil fuel now, and still getting cheaper. So who's fleecing you? Probably the ones feeding you the baseless assertions you're regurgitating here. The grid should be over 50% renewable by 2026, so we don't need to wait long to see how it all plays out. Anyway I'm already bored. Go do more research.
@@truhartwood3170 Thank you for the information, try not to stress out though.
Lots of luck. Getting that many people to agree without massive corruption is a long shot.
Good speech and new knowledge.
A very good talk, thank you.
However, it seems to me, that something very important was missing from decarbonization plans: sink carbon in soils and vegetation. Which will be possible (yes, it is proven by research and practice) by sustainable agriculture and reforestation with diverse selection of local trees and re-greening badly degraded areas.
Storing carbon in soil might not work because it's temporary and might be released later on depending on microbial activity, droughts , floods , climate change , cultivation practices etc.
@@richardstubbs6484 but the areas with no such problems might be able to Store it right?
I doubt that any amount of tree planting can sink all that fossil carbon back into the ground. Seriously though, I think the focus of this talk is about decarbonization of energy. Repairing the damage already done is a huge other topic. She has a 20 minute limit.
@@richardstubbs6484 imposing your ignorance on others might not work because ignorance is temporary as we learn more each day than the last. There's always lots of variables, so what? Lots of documented examples of raising and lowering carbon content in soils. Start with Gabe Brown and Alan Savory for raising; and for lowering see every field that sees the plow, the 'green revolution', synthetics, animal de stocking, or excess grazing. The land is way way bigger than the oil wells and way way way bigger than any goofy, wasteful machine built to capture carbon. More carbon = healthier, more productive soil. Soil is all we've really got, and all we've ever fought for. We not only should, we have to, and we will.
@@valerkis8280 been storing it for time longer than i can conceive. Been losing it, wasting it only 'recently'. So yes, you're right .
The devil is always in the unintended consequences and each generation’s arrogant belief that their “solutions” won’t have any.
True that
I totally agree… More importantly there is China and their plan for world domination.
I know that our solutions will have unintended consequences. And i accept them. Those unintended consequences are better than the Alternative of doing nothing.
@@wolfgangpreier9160 if you don’t know what they are how do you know they’re better?
Looking at these maps it's quite clear why the move towards green energy has been so sluggish & why China has been leading the way.
Exactly!
They are not leading the way; they are capitalizing on the move. There is a big difference. They are opening more coal mines and more coal fired plants every year at an alarming rate. They also tend to strip the landscape bare in any place they set up a factory e.g. Africa. They will cut down every tree, eat every animal, and kill off any tribe that objects.
Humanity it’s time to
breathe
Humanity it’s time to slow down
Humanity it’s time to make peace
✌️
It is time to idebntify as a 9 year old Hindu girl, sit in a tree and play the flute.
Reminds me on the 70s. The 1970s...
Breathing is unhealthy due to air pollution Slowing down is only possible where there are traffic hams. Making peace is impossible while the poor has to keep making babies to serve as labour for the greedy. So its time to think, to act and to improve (not "develop", which is the economists' newspeak.)
@@nicolemmer7681 Maybe dying is the only logical solution toy our problem? Or was that dyeing? Sorry, Englisch is not my mothers tongue.
Salvo, time to step into reality, it aint happening.
My 1989 minivan weighs a bit over 3000 pounds, a 2022 same brand electric minivan weighs over 4500 pounds. To carry with you such weight and energy storage is not the way to go. I predict there will be a merge with the power line and the transportation network in the near future so vehicles will not have to carry a reserve of energy. Also a suspended structure would not be affected by snow storms or floods; snow removal and potholes would be a thing of the past. We took the wrong direction with car batteries, this is only a flash in the pan. We need to live differently, have less and have a higher quality of life; for this we also need very good all encompassing environmental design.
Investigate Gravity Field Energy Conversion; Nikola Tesla's answer to automotive energy demonstrated in1931.
Very good talk ! I love the concept of "Ecological Diplomacy". Even if we can see that, with dictators like Putin, we are far from seeing such a global behavior leading our international relationships.
One thing is obvious. In front of the global warming, the loss of biodiversity, the soils depletion we have to change our direction at 180° ! All our activities need at a moment or another natural resources and energy. Needless to say that we will have less and less energy (the transition will only delay the moment where we will have less external energy available) and less raw materials (we are living in FINITE world).
We have known a world with 100% of renewable energies. It was before 1800 and the industrial revolution. In those times we were only 500 millions inhabitants. Life expectancy was around 35 years.
Personnaly I don't want to go back to those ages, but we will have to renounce to many many many things !
Green growth discussion should always include nuclear possibilities.
I must respectfully disagree. Too fragile, too high a risk in case of failure, and a major long-term waste problem, just to throw in a few of the reasons why.
Even though I live in the US I am originally from Brazil, a huge player in this process, that was treated with total disrespect in the last year , opening a huge door for China . It is sad , but politics can destroy, with one deslastrou move , years of work from people like the one we just heard . 😢
@@BadNessie You have much to learn. The problems you suggest are moot and have been misrepresented ad nauseam. This is PRECISELY why green growth discussions should always include nuclear possibilities.
I think it depends on where you are thinking of building nuclear power plants. On stable lands, with almost no earthquake and other natural disasters, nuclear is such a possibility. However, the risk increases in other places more vulnerable to natural disasters (referring to my home country, Japan). In case of tsunami, (which is what happened in the Fukushima explosion), it was simply beyond what humans can capable of handling. Although I acknowledge that there's human error aspect to it, in how to respond to the emergency, it's also true that the damages from tsunami was too huge that even experts could not do anything about it.
So yeah I just think we need to be careful when considering nuclear options and do holistic and detailed research on the landscape prior to the plan.
@@LTVoyager Okay, maybe I should start with explaining what I mean by fragile. I think we can all agree that yes, radiation exists in nature and we're all alive despite that fact, but too much radiation per time-period will cause severe damage in humans, animals, plants, the vast majority of living things. A nuclear reactor is nothing but a sophisticated steam engine. Only that radioactive heavy metals contained by metal rods are used to heat up the water so that a turbine system is being moved to generate electricity. Put enough rods close enough together in the water and the radiation of the radioactive materials inside the rods will activate more of the same material to do more of the same, which results in the production of heat. Here comes the fragile part: put too much of it together too closely, or don't cool it down properly (by re-feeding cooler water back within the system), the material gets activated more and more, produces more and more heat, up to a point of no return, which is called meltdown. It's called that because that's exactly what happens. It heats up to a point that is changing the state of aggregation from solid to liquid to plasma, which will cut through basically any material you may have tried to contain it with, following gravity. And it won't stop anytime soon, it can do that for thousands of years without noticably slowing down. At that point at the latest, large amounts of radiation will exit the system, causing damage in living things. Not to mention the risk of contaminated water leaving the system etc. The number of potential reasons that lead to any failure within this fragile system is endless. Human error being the most common one. Chernobyl: failure in cooling system, caused by human error. Fukushima: failure in cooling system caused by power failure caused by a Tsunami of which the size no one expected, human error. Zaporizhzhia (and no, nothing too bad of which we know has happened there - yet): humans are currently throwing bombs in close range of the nuclear power plant. And it doesn't even matter, *which side* does. Humans do.
We measure a well know technology that has been around for more than 100 years with a new one that hit the market just 10-15 years ago and has a rapid evolution no where close to the existing one. We already have launched batteries that don't need most of materials mentioned and others that are 99.9% recyclable and don't even need earth mining the Sodium ion battery already in production. It all comes to what our goal is the solutions are already in market the whole point is if we want huge profits or a bright future.
The panic of yelling Climate Emergency will only make things worse. We need to take our time to make sure we know the consequence of our action before moving forward. There are no perfect, over simplified solutions, only trade offs.
Very interesting cuts, seriously. But when you said "to reboot the hydrological cycle", "planetary breakdown" and "the existence of humanity" I had to think I am at a cult gathering.
So if we're smart and proactive we can save the planet. In other words, we're screwed.
Thanks
Your team appears to have a blind spot when it comes to human nature. There has always been global conflict so it’s safe to presume there always will be global conflict. That means we need innovation so we can make the transition even with the conflict.
She’s not blind to the history of global conflict.
@@Red_Proton She is turning a blind eye to human nature and consumer driven economy. Consumers drive all economies and you can change their behavior by presenting better options or by government force, take your pick.
@@davidking4779 I can see your point, but I don't think she's turning a blind eye to human nature and consumer driven economy. On the contrary, she speaking directly to that by point in two ways: 1) giving a [TED Talk] presentation directly to the people, and 2) sharing the knowledge without marketing filters and hype. I mean, she didn't say that outright, but does she have to? I think her actions speak for themselves.
@@Red_Proton She does address the negative side of going carbon free and I do appreciate that. I always question" at what cost and to whom?" The USA has decided to step down as a world leader and as a US citizen I worry about that.
@@davidking4779 Yes, good questions to consider regarding most things. We are seeing firsthand the shift in economies because of a shift in consumer demand, which leads to a shift in geopolitics and a shift in natural resources valuable to the [next] economy.
Conclusion should not be more netzero action but less and more adaptation. We should do what humanity does best: adapt. Humans live in hot, cold, wet and dry climate regions. Adaptation works.
Refreshing to hear the truth...
Hah! Truth? You mean Takng Every Dime!
One needs to remember Einstein's theory on the conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another. This is very true, and we must realize what the results of this transfromation will be. We may have negative effects from the use of fossil fuels, but we will also have negative effects from the use of renewables. It will take centuries to see these effects, good luck on this utopian dream.
This is great! However, while the most rich men on Earth are getting richer from whatever kind of exploitation is going on and will not give up their hold on wealth for the sake of humanity we’re holding the short end of the stick…
A global regime of any name is a lot of power
There is a profound difference between the extraction and use of carbon resources ( such as coal, oil and natural gas), and the extraction and use of minerals ( such as lithium and nickel) for batteries. Carbon resources are consumed by their use, putting carbon into the atmosphere in the process. But once the minerals for batteries have been mined, it becomes cheaper to recycle old batteries than it is to make new ones from freshly mined minerals. Battery materials are perfectly (and economically) recyclable. They are not consumed by their use, unlike carbon resources.
My engineering graduate son tells me that recycling rare earth metals from electric car batteries is not practically possible.
@@owenperks1877 lithium and nickel are not rare earths.
Very informative talk! I am so glad we have intelligent people thinking about these critical logistical issues. I believe that if we take longer to convert from fossil fuel to renewable energy, we will avoid the abrupt volatility that such a transition will cause. Switching 100% carbon neutral goals in 20-years to 80% carbon neutral goals in 100 years can be much easier on world economies. Climate change is NOT the emergency being claimed by alarmists.
If you just go Nuclear you won't have a massive issue with needing to get all those minerals and tearing up local ecosystems.
Nuclear fusion is the answer
yes you are. Nuclear powered cars isn't an option. They will go electric. We can debate where the elctricity will come from, but minerals will be needed.
The calculus changes when one finally realizes there is no climate crisis.
This is your reminder that yes, you are strong enough to overcome anything and everything that life throws at you.🙏🏽💙💫
Count me in!! I am onboard!!!
The realities of Tantalum mining in the Congo and the lack of knowledge in America about that are a big part of why I couldn't commit to finishing my electrical engineering degree. It's a huge blind money grab for tech companies.
hahaha, ahh. Speaking of lack of knowledge. Silicon Solar PV (most is) -- requires ZERO Tantalum. Maybe you should have stuck around and actually learned the topic?
I didn’t realize this, but I’m insanely attracted to de-carbonization
Thanks for this very important info!!
Best Ted Talk i've heard in a while.
Most dishonest TED talk I've heard in a while. It sounds as though it was written by the fossil fuel industry.
It's great that she points out all the interrelated problems with achieving a green transition, but I'm afraid she's missing the biggest one - that it's physically impossible.
And THAT is absolutely correct! The problem is that people don't do their homework (I guess not even the speaker). I liked the stuff by Dr. Simon Michaux concerning that exact topic. I guess just let them dream until reality comes crashing down all around them.
So what you are saying is that we are screwed no matter what we do so don't do anything?
@@dionysusnow No, I didn't say that.
@@dionysusnow No. Impossible is the wrong word but it's so infeasible that it's highly unlikely we are going to meaningfully decarbonize on the timeframe governments are setting themselves (in the way they plan on doing it - important point there).
To put things into context, according to the IEA, in order to decarbonize (as world governments want to with solar and wind) we would have to increase critical mineral production and processing by about ~200-2000% (it varies and depends on the mineral). It takes 10 - 20 years to bring new mines in service. Investment into new mines is too low to meet demand and the amount of energy it takes to extract minerals is phenomenal (mean energy cost for copper is 36 GJ/kg as an example); such that to mine and process we will be burning natural gas and diesel fuel to do it.
So, we could do it the way governments seemingly intend on doing it, but it would come at such a great cost. Not just everyones industrial capacity dedicated to green energy, but industrial capcity that doesn't even exist. Mountains would disspear, forests get ran over, huge quantities of diesel the likes of which we have never consumed before to run machinery and transport. And we'd have 5 years on average to do it before 2040 because as i said it takes 10-20 years to bring new mines up.
The pirnciple however, of decarbonizing, is absolutely not crazy at all. We have Hydro, Geothermal and Nuclear as long term permanent solutions, and if we didtched oil and coal electricity for Natural gas (combined cycle) so that we could appropriately ramp into solar and wind at a feasible speed it's certainly doable by say 2050-2060. If we electrify and use more mass transit once we implement more alenatives like nuclear we could also do wonders.
@@klondike444 OK if you didn't say those specific words. You assert it's impossible to transition to renewables. What happens when the non renewables run out? What will happen then? Remember it's impossible to transition, how would we not be screwed?
What is missing from Olivia's narrative is stabilizing the human population size. The challenge is how? Yet, this is the main factor (in my opinion) to achieve decarbonization and with it a sustainable development.
I do understand the complexity of the energy market, but in all fairness it’s a big difference between extracting a mineral once that can be recycled and used over and over again (urban mining) and oil and gas that you can burn once.
Sustainable is the key word for me.
This was addressed in the video, we are nowhere near a circular recycling economy. Even if we had perfect circular recycling economy, increases in population or product consumption would mean more mining.
@@lamcho00 Population is projected to peak. Additional consumption would be incremental whereas with fossil fuels its continual extract and burn.
The blind spot is the cost, lack of energy produces, and the fact that it is worse for the environment than oil and gas.
Well said!
Wow,great insights ...Thankyou very very much.
It's amazing how easy it has been to convince seemingly sentient individual that less CO2 in the atmosphere will make the planet greener. Please review your grade school science book, the chapter on plants and photosynthesis.
Very interesting talk. We need to go carbonfree but with this talk in mind is there anything renewable in for example off shore windturbines with all that material needed and only a lifespan of 15 years?
But if managing every country's resources for green energy in a Global Public Good Regime is a must for this to be solved, we will never solve this.
It’s amazing that someone so connected to the status quo, can only see the future in terms of the past. There’s zero chance that the global power structure can/will allow sovereign governments to restrict the supply of critical materials without war. The great African tribesman said, “…he who has salt, also has war”.
Here’s an idea worth spreading, “ let’s eliminate the need for energy… by design”!!!
Ideally it should be our target but we cannot ignore China's Russia or west thirst to become/stay dominant power.
Yes! None of these people are factoring in the main issue… China!
Excellent talk!
Shorter: just stick with fossil fuels if you know what's good for you. This PSA comes to you courtesy of the global energy corporations.
The biggest challenge to making the world a better place may have always been our basic nature: we persue what we want right now over pursuing what we want most. Does anyone see a change in human nature on the horizon?
There seems to be a simpler more achievable solution; massive investment in nuclear power especially in europe
Nuclear still requires a bit more material than the current fossil fuel infrastructure (and there are political challenges with much of the known uranium reserves being in Russia and Kazakhstan), even if much less than a world powered entirely by solar and wind. Unfortunately, the same fundamental problem applies, in that if we are to decarbonize, we need to replace our current fossil fuel services with electricity-based alternatives (some of which will be nuclear powered), and there simply aren't enough mineral (especially metal) resources available to have an electricity based car fleet (etc.) of the same size as today's ICE car fleet - at least not for more than a few decades of this century. That is, you need to replace and expand a lot of the consumption side, not just the power generation side. The implication is that some sort of degrowth or other similar reduction of energy demand is required in tandem with decarbonization. This is going to be VERY difficult politically and economically - it's nice to see someone paying attention to the political side of this challenge. (I'm not saying that it's going to work; just that if we want to try head towards net zero, something along these lines is going to be required.)
@@davidbarry6900 this TED talk certainly makes me think that we need more Nuclear, we need to get Fusion to work and get it commercialised, and we need to be looking more at a hydrogen or ammonia based system for ICEs (including air and shipping) rather than batteries and rare-earth magnet based motor systems
Nuclear design innovation has been deliberately held back by regulations in the name of safety and nuclear nonproliferation. It is an almost impossible situation to rectify. Wind, solar, storage, transmission are cheaper and easier. It was a great mistake to close down nuclear and fossil fuel extraction prior to ramping up the green power sources.
Thank you for shedding light on this huge greenwashed blindspot. I am from one of the geopolitical hot-spots: Myanmar. We have the world's third largest source of mined rare earths, and guess who is mining it? If you guessed China, you'd be correct. China is our neighbor, but it is not a good one, and we should be getting help feom the western countries, but help is not coming in urgency the way the western countries are making climate change a global emergency. We see the hypocracy of climate politics from politicians and we hope better understanding from this video will change that soon.
China is the only country soiling their own to refine rare earth minerals. You are of course free to build your own refinery. Its not hard. Just extremely dirty.
Talking technology to Greenies is like talking reason to a five year old
And that is why we need a new format of relations - Creative Society instead of the consumerist approach
When mentioned Congo and cobalt, you should not forget children working there for our “eco” batteries😢😢😢
Fortunately Tesla is solving these supply chain problems. Governments should learn from Tesla's upcoming Master Plan part 3.
I agree with all her geopolitical concerns about unintended consequences IF we continue to try building EV's that rely on cobalt etc, but the reality is the world is moving away from rare earth's due to price - and EV's now can use LFP, sodium, and are working towards aluminium-graphene (or probably aluminium-hemp!) or aluminium-sulfur. These resources are SUPER-abundant. She needs to revisit her primary assumptions about renewable technology.
Sssshhh!
People want to hyperfocus on lithium and cobalt despite the fact we don't really need them! ;)
While pretending that mining them is worse than mining coal and oil.....
Really good talk.
Right, for a bunch of utterly evil devil worshippers who want total control of planet earth, the TED folks make a lot of sense, eh?
Don't sweat, Ma'am. If it is not economically viable, it won't happen. No one will bankrupt themselves to give you blue skies. Neither will people use less energy. Green or any other colour, energy use will increase
Interesting opinion! Is it possible to see the data sources for the maps in this presentation?
it is like watching an end-of-world movie
Great speech! 🙏🏼🌏🌎🌎🙏🏼 save the World !
China ahead of the game here.
The Western countries need to rethink their strategies ....
Some of the concrns are invalid
Rare Earths are not that rare, only currently there is not much mining capacity built out for them. True, that those build-outs should have started already.
Lithium-ion batteries will not be the main driver of the grid transformation. Natrium-ion batteries will be and those are not supply chain limited at all.
Cobalt is being driven out of modern, high-energy lithium ion battery chemistries. Low-energy li-ion chemistries dont use cobalt even today. LFP
Always looking to get more. Never looking to use less.
Definitely something I haven’t thought about very deeply…..
Fantastic talk, thank you. I only wish you had mentioned DEGROWTH!
Degrowth means death to millions and I doubt you’ll be volunteering. Technology inevitably brings accelerating economic growth and an accelerating demand for resources. That is a fact of human life. An age of abundance and wealth is what enables humans to care for their environment. Chaos and poverty leads to the opposite.
@@paulmcgreevy3011 If it required my death, I would lay down my own life. But it doesn't. Your understanding of degrowth is lacking.
@@mrdeanvincent before you lay down your life make sure you do your research thoroughly at least
@@paulmcgreevy3011 Didn't you imply that degrowth means poverty, death and an inability to care for the environment? Please take your own advice and do some research.
Beginning of the video was good. We have an issue with the current technologies. We need more advances in technology that don't rely on rare earth metals before we fully attempt to decarbonize. Governments are forcing this issue before it's ready. Both scientists and governments often get things wrong.
Where this video fails is the idea of a "Global Public Good Regime." Sounds exactly like centralized planning with a single world government. No thanks. There isn't a single successful example of central planning being effective in history beyond small communes. Humans just aren't smart enough to handle all the variables. When this has been tried at scale, people starve to death, get purged, experience economic collapse, etc. She is right that we are headed for a disaster because of rare earth mineral mining and the geo-political climate. The solution is to slow down the process and let the technologies catch up. For the last 30 years, the doomsayer predictions have all been overstated. We have time to get it right.
I'm going to keep beating the nuclear drum. It's the only technology we have in place today that would reduce carbon usage in the short term.
True that!
At the end of this bold venture to 'decarbonise', will the world produce more or less CO2 emissions?
There’s all sorts of research going on into alternatives to lithium/cobalt/etc for battery storage. Sand is a really promising one. There’s simply not enough of those minerals in the world anyway to realistically support a worldwide Green transition.
@Mike Harrison yeah and his book is filled with propaganda. He is not lying but he gives half the picture so that a person's opinion would be biased.
Im sure glad we have these people looking out for the PLANET !!!! ABSERD !!!
Also the world described requires a strong global government. I fear such central rule by a technocratic elite
China again?
So you say it's better to relocate further toward the Earth's poles because your house might end up in the middle of a desert due to global warming? Oh and that's if you survive the hunger from crop failure. Also you'd have to compete with a bunch of people who try to do the same. By a bunch of people I mean most of Africa, Latin America and India.
Yeah.. that's not really a viable solution in my book.
Although I think what she has to say is important, I think the discussion regarding globalism is naive. Balance of power and competition between nations keep governments in check and keep us from a single global totalitarian government (i.e. utopia is the vision, but where humans are involved we end up with dystopia)