Can Green Energy Actually Work? (Exploring Clean Energy Economics) || Peter Zeihan

The economics of green energy are vastly different from traditional fossil fuels, and we must understand their differences if the transition to green energy will ever be successful.
Full Newsletter: mailchi.mp/zei...
Where to find more?
Subscribe to the Newsletter: bit.ly/3NyQu4l
Subscribe to the KZbin Channel: bit.ly/3Ny9UXb
Listen to the Podcast: spoti.fi/3iJyNEe
Zeihan on Geopolitics website: zeihan.com/
Purchase the Global Outlook Webinar Here: bit.ly/3xBvRxd
Where to find me on Social Media?
Twitter: bit.ly/3E1E95D
LinkedIn: bit.ly/3zJAW8b
Instagram: bit.ly/3IW2mgp
Facebook: bit.ly/3ZIAjHk
#energy #economics #greentech #solar #wind

[@matthiasbowie3844]

Best college class I never paid for

[@whazzat8015]

Get what you pay for. Read his book . Library copy if you have to.

[@Mandelbrotmat]

amen

[@seamusmcdermott4746]

@@whazzat8015 his recent book is lit

[@EZDZ24]

@JJ-df8sbhe can’t, therefore he won’t.

[@GalactusOG]

You are paying for it.

[@thomasmoss1066]

Watch this everyday. I greatly appreciate your time

[@porkch0mp538]

I'm glad he started doing his own youtube show after so many 'finance investor channel!" have been posting his talks

[@hill2750]

His ideas are Gold standard and World class, but I worry that he is underestimating AI like ChatGPT

[@thomasmoss1066]

@@hill2750 I have not focused on his AI assessments. He is a generalist by trade and synthesizes all of his general knowledge to evaluate specific situations over the long term. I'm sure his positions will evolve as AI evolves and he has data. He understands chips, manufacturing and supply sources, which then dictates geography, development and access, which is a big part of AI. I'm not sure if he is concerned about people in marketing or paralegals in his assessments. Much of his assessments are more general like the United States, East vs West, Alliances and things of that nature. How do you see AI effecting either a specific situations or how do you see AI being lost or measured improperly in his assessments? When we have advanced decades into robots and AI responses are better than human thinking. There will be no need for masses of people to do the bidding of the people that own "Federal Reserve", then what will happen? That's my fear but Peter would not talk or even probably analyze such a situation.

[@hg2.]

"Renewable Energy" -- a kid's-lemonade-stand business model, "batteries not included". * * * I don't care about global warming. I'm not going to impoverish myself by 25% in order to "fight global warming"? What are the consequences of global warming? 1) A 1-2 degree increase in average temperature: I don't care. I can deal with that by turning down the temperature on the AC thermostat (and I prefer milder winters). 2) A 1.2 inches per decade rise in sea level: again, I don't care becuase: a) Most people live well enough above that for that to be of any concern to anyone alive today. b) In 100 years time, this may be a concern for people living on beachfront property, but they are the most wealthy people among us and I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% to preserve their vacation homes. Coastal cities that haven't already built their waterfronts to handle a 1.2 foot rise in sea level have 100 years to deal with the problem. c) Poor and low lying subsistence agricultural lands have a tough row to hoe, but sea levels have been rising for more than 100 years, and their circumstances would be better improved by moving out of subsistence agriculture and into higher value added (and mobile) occupations. 3) Oceans becoming less basic (currently 8.1 pH; 7.0 is neutral, i.e. tap water): again, I don't care. a) I don't care if clam shells become more fragile at this level of pH. b) I find it preposterous to hear that clams, with billions of years of evolution behind them in a hostile environment (sea water), can't handle a 0.1 decrease in basic ("alkaline", not "acidic") pH -- which is a movement toward neutral, i.e. "fresh" water. [The term "ocean ACIDITY" is used by climate hustlers to incite fear for political and personal gain.] Have I missed anything? Melting glaciers? Sorry, I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% over receding glaciers. Sorry, but I don't care. The costs and power grabs behind this issue are astounding. So are the lottery-ticket benefits, unless you are in on the scam: the politicians, enforcers, and renewable energy opportunists. If you feel so strongly about global warming, you should lobby for THORIUM MOLTEN SALT REACTORS -- not only for electricity, but for manufacturing synthetic gasoline -- all carbon neutral. If not already familiar with it, here is a playlist for it: kzbin.info/aero/PL6JjafE5gsb9nSmudoj5MUKxX8LTKO0-J Here is a list of Australia's green energy fiascos: kzbin.info/www/bejne/foi1qombotiHrNU Big Trouble in the Tropical Troposphere (Aug 27, 2021) John Robson/CDN - Climate Discussion Nexus kzbin.info/www/bejne/pGe5fmdnYttlnck Min 16:30 What we found (is) the amount of heat that is being retained by THE MODELS is much greater than what we actually see in the real world. So this is important in the sense that it's a test metric. In other words all the models show this should be happening when you increase greenhouse gases -- when you increase that heating amount, and it's something we don't find, which means the real atmosphere evidently has ways to expel that heat that the models don't allow. It turns out that the models that agree most with the actual observations -- you know, they're still too warm but they're closer to it -- are the ones that are LEAST SENSITIVE TO CARBON DIOXIDE -- the ones that have the lowest warming rate at the surface. Scientifically it's just uh amazing or almost incomprehensible because in in the scientific method we make a claim and then we test that claim against independent data. - John Cristy, professor of atmospheric science. Vs. Min 4:00 to 11:00 1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate (Sep 21, 2008) Source: Potholer54 kzbin.info/www/bejne/a2OufXqnebh0oNE

[@thomasmoss1066]

@@hg2. Can I have context? Why did you put this here?

[@Monkey-fv2km]

Such a pleasant relief to hear someone addressing the practical challenges of this subject without political agenda.

[@alexinness]

so true.

[@nicholascarter9158]

Please remember that Zeihan always has a political agenda, and just because that agenda is broadly pro-American with no favoritism for specific factions doesn't mean that it isn't political.

[@Holy_Frijole]

Two other youtubers I like also talk about green energy and the tradeoffs and costs are Two Bit Davinci, and Undecided With Matt Ferrell.

[@Monkey-fv2km]

@@nicholascarter9158 he's a geopolitical analyst, so the context is political, but a bias isn't the same as an agenda.

[@tonespeaks]

@@Monkey-fv2km Bias or Agenda, kind of the same thing? To be honest he isn't saying anything if you really listen carefully. Wind farms where it is windy, Solar where it is sunny. I think even Trump could have figured that out.

[@adamsouthard1155]

When you look at the breakdown of the energy mix in different states it's pretty clear that we're not going to successfully make this transition without embracing nuclear generation much more enthusiastically than we have. And - living in Georgia where I've been paying for a nuclear power plant for years that's only now just becoming operational - it appears as though we've lost some of the institutional knowledge needed to ramp up nuclear generation.

[@captiveamerica1776]

The tech is still being furiously worked on. The US has some work being done on thorium reactors and several European labs are working on various fusion and fission solutions. Our politicians are just 40 years behind.

[@nicholascarter9158]

It has always taken longer to build a nuclear reactor than a fossil fuels reactor, that's part of why we do not do it: to make the risks associated with investing in a nuclear plant math out, you've pretty much got to nationalize the power grid and issue a government guarantee that investors in the plant will be made whole. We don't want to do that, so nuclear plants do not get built.

[@pecan11]

@@nicholascarter9158well they r close to bringing nuke at plant in GA The govt guaranteed the borrowing but they have already said they will go after SoCo if they don’t pay it back

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

You build atomistic brightly shining power plants that bankrupt your economy and we build cheap PV and wind with large scale storage. Lets see in 50 years who has done better.

[@danielmeuler2877]

Stop using real science and common sense you Climate change denier.

[@jjggbbjunk]

I think Peter has implied that power cannot be transferred between the three AC interconnections. There are about a half dozen HVDC back-to-back stations that have been in operation doing just that for decades. The Blackwater facility built in 1984 near Clovis, NM is an example. HVDC transmission lines can also connect asynchronous grids. I would say the main roadblock to building large transmission is legal/political/financial. It is very hard to get right-of-way for a long transmission line for all kinds of reasons - environmental concerns, homeowner concerns, cultural heritage concerns -- just about anyone can sue and hold up a project. It is also hard to get enough subscribers willing to wait long enough to build the line. While the DOE has some programs to mitigate this, I think if the administration wants a continent-scale grid (especially by 2035), they will have to create another Power Marketing Administration similar to BPA/TVA/WAPA to build and operate it. After 15 years of development, WAPA has still not broken ground on the Trans West Express line from Wyoming to (roughly) Las Vegas, though it does seem to finally be getting to the finish line. When complete, TransWest Express will be a 732 mile, 3000MW HVDC line.

[@dzcav3]

Additional transmission infrastructure and costs never get mentioned when people talk about solar and wind economics. Everyone assumes the new sources will use existing lines or that the additional lines would have to be built anyway. But that's not true. Solar and wind are generally in different locations than legacy power plants. Also, you generally need to maintain fossil backup for solar and wind, so the grid needs additional flexibility to handle the widely varying inputs. And the cost of maintaining those backup plants is also not included in wind and solar costs. It's a very distorted picture, which explains why electricity costs are rising around the world when these supposed cheaper "green" sources are used.

[@davidruizcampos03]

Here in Costa Rica we produce 96% renovable, as Peter says, we hit the right energy, our Mountain Chains give us the advantage to produce a lot of Hydroelectric Energy, we also have some wind and Geothermal (lots of volcanos).

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

So what do you manufacture in Costa Rica?

[@davidruizcampos03]

@@KevinBalch-dt8ot I think our governments have failed to do business with the US, we have the people and the right timezone, the airports, the shipping ports close to Miami, but we are still a undeveloped country. We have many freezones, Amazon, Microsoft, and the oldest is Intel since 1994 for chip manufacturing, also medical equipment manufacture plants, but any of those companies are here because of the carbon footprint.

[@texomajohn2916]

What Peter is saying is something I learned as a salesman in the seventies, “You fish where the fishes are “.

[@teddybearroosevelt1847]

The plural of fish is fish. Are you really such a Texan? Or is fishes just Texan for fish?

[@72waverly]

@@teddybearroosevelt1847 that is a well known vernacular expression. Don’t be too smart by half…

[@lolwuttup420]

@@teddybearroosevelt1847 Stop being mean Mr. Roosevelt. Just because your mom and your wife both died on Valentines Day doesn’t mean you have to lash out at others.

[@texomajohn2916]

@@teddybearroosevelt1847 thank you “President spell check”

[@dejectedfrogcat2840]

Such a novel concept! Imagine that!

[@jack6539]

It is so good to see succinct and level level headed perspectives.

[@grahamcook9289]

R U serious. He just spouted a complete load of bollocks that doesn't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.

[@rocks4brains]

I may not agree with all of your perspectives but I appreciate them.

[@lucasrodriguezschwarzenber3127]

As someone living in germany, everytime I hear Peter talk about real costs/needs to go green energy, I fear for my future 😐

[@whazzat8015]

Naw. Just grab Ukraine.

[@protorhinocerator142]

PZ doesn't offer a lot of hope for Germany's future. After Pax Americana ends, things don't look so good for Germany.

[@KR-ki9hw]

The Germans are an intelligent and resourceful group of people. I know they will figure it all out.

[@Ilamarea]

@@whazzat8015 Tard.

[@LaFonteCheVi]

@@KR-ki9hw Of course they will. But the worry isn't the destination, it is the time inbetween. The world will be fine, but the transition? Extremely painful. Lots of human suffering in the mean time.

[@tomshirleysr.44]

I've become a big fan of your videos. Very educational. I have one comment. The word nuclear isn't pronounced new-que-ler. It's new-clear. Try it, new-clear, new-clear, new-clear. Keep up the great work. We appreciate it. Retired nuclear career employee of 37 years. 😊

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

I am a retired nuclear engineer (35 years as well). I think Carter started pronouncing nuclear as nucular

[@AstroGremlinAmerican]

The word comes from the "nucleus" of an atom, which is split or fissioned to release energy and neutrons, pieces of the nucleus that bang into other nuclei, splitting them. When I hear someone say "nucular," I can't help but think ignoranus, as uninformed as someone saying "elagtricity."

[@jeanlamb5026]

The Budweiser plant in Fairfield, CA took ten years to save up for their first big wind turbine. But they were able to afford the second one in only three, because they saved *that much* with the first one. (I strongly recommend paying money for the Brewmaster's tour, but don't eat the hops! Save your taste buds for later on, where you drink beer straight from the big metal tuns where Beer is Born).

[@MrHobbesandlocke]

​@@mrmines2000 you that guy who waits in line for Pliny?

[@MrHobbesandlocke]

@@mrmines2000 very cool, good luck

[@ggdesio]

Morning Peter, in relationship to power transmission that technology already exists. The EU’s current,say 2050, energy plan has a central power distribution focus on “Point of Use”. It wouldn’t be a surprise if our 15 minute cities were the EU’s size designation for POU.

[@claudiooliveiraegalon2615]

Interesting point. Could you please elaborate a little bit more? Is this a big solar power system that distribute energy to several households nearby? Thank you!

[@1802wardog]

Peter, please list a bunch of books you have read and recommend for us all. We would all like to expand our critical and understanding the way you have. Thank you

[@harrywhitt2218]

Ya Peter, seriously. There’s a guy who monetizes that. He puts his book list behind a paywall, you could do that if you must.

[@SoloRenegade]

read a lot of history, engineering history, energy history, military/war history, famine history, history of specific nations you're interested in..... eventually you read enough to start seeing the patterns in history.

[@harrywhitt2218]

@@SoloRenegade and start with “The Lessons of History” by Will and Ariel Durant

[@bogdandanailescu]

Brave New World, 1984, When the Machine Stops. Let me know if you want more ;)

[@harrywhitt2218]

@@bogdandanailescu all right fine guys, we are doing it ourselves; Lessons of History Will and Ariel Durant (97 pages, REQUIRED) The New Penguin History of the World (1200 pages, but gives you a powerful framework). Analects of Confucius(this will explain much of East Asian thought and even explain their political structures) Gulag Archipelago (this will explain the heart of man, and the precipitous ledge of evil we are ALWAYS ON). The history of the Peloponnesian. (Don’t overthink it , but it displays infighting politics, hubris, tactics, etc.) Lies My Teacher told Me Guns Germs and Steal The merchants of grain (how commodities become weaponized political assets). Principles for a Changing World order (contrast this with Zeihan’s book and views)

[@mansourkhatib]

I always like Peters insight . However, I think you need to expand on your technical knowledge . 1. Capital for those large investments must come from the government in the form of infrastructure cost. 2. However, the keyword is electrification which seems the most not or misunderstood term in society . Electrification is about efficiency and forecast suggest that when we electrify everything ... Or near everything that we will reduce overall energy needs by 60%. Which means 60% of the infrastructure you are talking about is not needed. 3. This changes everything , electrification changes everything .

[@lukacsnemeth1652]

How long a streak can Peter make of energy resource videos where he doesn't mention nuclear? 3 so far.

[@drrtfm]

Or the need for storage. Or energy density.

[@adamperdue3178]

They've got the same problem of being very capital-dependent with the majority of the cost being frontloaded. Also nuclear is getting less and less competitive as regulations become more strict over time, at this point you need government to stop interfering in the process to make it more viable.

[@0202pmurT]

Robert Zubrin's new book The Case for Nukes lays out in painful detail how much the government interferes with fission power availability and delivery. Absent those regulations greentech would be a joke except for off grid use.

[@2509Ed]

He is ideologically opposed to nuclear. He doesn't understand it.

[@jakobbartscher4716]

As someone working for a transmission operator, the technologies do already exist. The main area of "innovation" must be regulatory! Slow approval of construction permits, inappropriate land acquisition laws and lacking laws for the ability of demand-side management are the bottlenecks.

[@Castleknight]

Man, he travels a lot. He could do a travel channel, alongside this channel, if he had the time, lol.

[@Castleknight]

Maybe, when he retires from his current gig or goes part time?

[@ColdPotato]

I think he's just trying to recreate the music video for 'Take me Home' by Phil Collins.

[@SuperCulverin]

He does travel quite a lot. Less than you think, but still more than average.

[@whazzat8015]

This ain't a travel channel? Just better patter Flies a lot then talks about energy problems. Hmmm.

[@StephenGillie]

Peter Zeihan Travelogue: Learn the best hotels, restaurants, hiking trails, conference halls, and geopolitical talking points. Odd question - how does Peter's knowledge of geopolitics influence his travels around the world? Does he avoid or prefer certain unusual places? It's notable that his home is in the USA, despite being able to choose basically any country.

[@PMeventsLT]

What about the ever falling price per kW and ever-growing efficiency of the sun electricity cells? As far as i understand, this has been a factor in the popularity of this type of energy?

[@hadleygodden2323]

I'd be very interested to hear Peter's thoughts on what the realistic oil reserves we have left are and whether or not he finds the ever increasing energy costs that go into extraction of the oil is a concern, given that it appears to be getting considerably harder to get it out of the ground

[@yellowcottagetales]

Hasn't fracking made it abundant and affordable?

[@Quickshot0]

@@yellowcottagetales For awhile, though fracking has raised the minimum cost for extraction as well. This is why it only really started happening so much once oil started costing more then it used to. I have little clue how much fracking expands the total amount of oil one can extract though. So can't realistically project how long that would last, but presumably it would start running down eventually.

[@simond7582]

and that we will use the same amount in the next 20 years as we have in the last 100.

[@ironclaw6969]

If you read his books, you'd know.

[@koomo801]

Fracking is a very old tech (I fracked my first well just out of college in 1985 and the tech was already decades old). Horizontal fracking is what's relatively new. We're punching one expensive hole in the ground when we'd have to punch 60 instead. Oil is found all over the place. The only factors in our lifetimes that will affect oil prices are pretty much the same that's always affected it...politics and upheaval. Unlike nearly every other lucrative industry, no one controls who can enter it. So if it interests you, get in. But it's difficult to pull off if you're married or already in your 30s.

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

The renewables also need an electrical storage capacity that would be a significant percentage of theit total installed nameplate rating. However, that cost is never factored into the cost of the cheap renewables.

[@alexmcneily]

On the make-the-most-of-existing-transmission-infrastructure, I'd like to hear some of Peter's thinking on the building new technology nuclear plants where defunct coal generation facilities are.

[@andrewcameron1050]

That's what is starting to happen in Australia, they're building solar or wind plants near defunct coal power stations to tap into the existing transmission infrastructure, road networks and the existing workforce. But we've learnt this the hard way with several major solar projects marooned in the countryside with very limited transmission lines nearby.

[@davidchristie696]

Yes, the next generation of nuclear plant are likely to be small enough to be built in a factory, transported to a location where transmission for old, defunct fossil fuel plant already exists, and be commissioned there. This theoretically, would significantly reduce the cost of nuclear generated power. It would also speed up the implementation time because multiple small plants could be commissioned gradually, one at a time.

[@Periwinkleblue942]

I would love to know which stock picks Peter has. I would absolutely mirror his stock picks.

[@andrewbenson344]

Hey Peter, looking to see a video on how important mining is and if Canada is on the right track with their mining industry?

[@pyroboobysmith359]

If you consider selling CANADAS mines to China 'the right track', then yes.

[@tonespeaks]

@Andrew Benson Canada is heading on the right track!!! Canada is becoming a pivotal country in terms of Green Energy and EV Production. Canada is rich with minerals and resources needed for the Green Energy revolution. The VW announcement is just a start, there are many companies swarming Canada now. Canada not only has the resources, but the workforce to make it work. This is a tricky time for Canadians, because they have to choose between old economy tried and true vs new Green Economy. Having said that, Canada can have the best of both Worlds, but it has to be ready to make the transition to Green Energy, that is where the $$$$ and future is.

[@pyroboobysmith359]

@@tonespeaks CANADA is not going anywhere the WEF does not want it to go and VW did not pick CANADA, CANADA paid billions of our tax dollars to entice them to come. VW will not be online until 2027, by that time, the technology will be outdated, or should I say, ' better be ' outdated, because battery tech, as it stands, is no where near where it has to be, to take the world on this utopian dream.

[@randyhelzerman]

Seems like you should have mentioned that the cost of wind and solar are plummeting, which will substantially ease up on upfront capital costs.

[@Ryan-ff2db]

Green energy like solar and wind are cheaper over the life of the project, sometimes substantially. The problem is in the storage and transmission of that energy. The upfront costs are substantial with all forms of energy especially nuclear. If we are serious about green energy the investments need to go towards storage facilities and I'm not just talking about batteries, there are many forms of storage like pumped hydro that dwarf battery storage.

[@davidchristie696]

When you convert energy from one form to another, typically you waste about two thirds of that energy. Hydro storage in a head of water is an exception to this rule. With pumped storage hydro plant you can get over 90% of the input energy back when you need it. Problem is that the storage capacity available is tiny compared to the total demand on the grid. You could do essentially the same thing as hydro with tidal lagoons. Build a reservoir in an estuary. Let the tide fill the reservoir. When the tide turns, add more water to the reservoir to top up the head of water further, then use the head to generate electricity with Pelton turbines. You can theoretically leverage the energy input to get four times as much back as you put in using this method. But there are no commercial tidal lagoon systems out there yet AFAIK. I expect the up front capital costs for this would be huge, and it would only be effective in a small number of locations. Tidal range varies enormously across the globe, and not all locations have only two tides per day.

[@Ryan-ff2db]

@@davidchristie696 Yeah, converting energy to something like hydrogen isn't very efficient and really only useful for some niche cases. Gravity storage typically falls into the 80 - 90 percent efficiency range of which pumped hydro can be considered, battery storage is in a similar efficiency range. There are some pilot plants using massive weights where they lift them with surplus energy and lower them when energy is needed. The efficiency is similar to pumped hydro but there's not nearly the volume of stored energy so they would take up a lot of space at scale. If we could get batteries cheaper that would help, but that's a big if. Truth is we'll need variety of storage solutions and a lot of them if we're serious about green energy.

[@HiwasseeRiver]

Energy cost are less inelastic for large players that buy large amounts of energy with futures contracts btw. The retail buyers and spot buyers are the ones who pay the price for not per-arrainging energy supply via futures contract.

[@lostboy7191]

From a domestic house point of view I changed from oil heating to a heat pump in 2016, I reduced my heating costs by 50%, last year I installed 4.5kw of PV panels, and as I get paid a tariff of 22cents per kw that I supply back to the grid, I have further reduced my heating costs by a further 30%, plus hotwater costs. Basically I am offsetting winter heating costs by the excess electricity generated from the solar pv in the summer.

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

Try getting those PV panels without using fossil fuels for the mining, manufacturing or transport of the material going into them.

[@tonespeaks]

@@KevinBalch-dt8ot I think you are missing the point, Fossil Fuels are needed now, because we have few alternatives. Where there are viable alternatives we should use them. Let's not forget, there is only so much fossil Fuels in the ground.

[@notice9218]

@@tonespeaks He's saying that these alternatives are predicated on fossil fuel use in order to create them in the first place. No one is mining, smelting, or transporting minerals using clean energy. This one person has reduced their costs yes, but what was required in the supply chain in order to make that switch? Someone is using fossil fuels to mine, refine, and transport these materials so that he can offset his personal usage, which is likely a net wash. I agree that fossil fuels will eventually run out, but there's far more to do than just buy a bunch of solar panels on the consumer side.

[@tonespeaks]

@@notice9218 Of course we have to use fossil fuels to create things that don't use Fossil fuels.... duh (not to be rude)! He is stating the obvious. Of course there is far more to do... No one is saying buy a few solar panels and everything is ok. Transitioning to Greener energy will take a major transition in the economy. Just for the record a few videos ago, Peter was trying to state that is is virtually impossible to make the Green transition.

[@jhill4071]

@@tonespeaks Peter also may a point about the need for having Sun/Wind favorable geography.

[@joeanonimous1105]

Good summary. Technology is not as much a problem with transmission as you seem to thing HVDC transmission is now at

[@candlelarbra5212]

Do a vid on NZ, Aus, Canada outlook in short, medium and long term

[@UKN77]

Have you already read his latest book? There's some info there.

[@candlelarbra5212]

@@UKN77 Only a small amount. Need a proper video.

[@andrewmcknight1194]

My Dawg!! Killing it as usual..

[@connorwills9862]

My man Peter Z casually walking on water today 😂 is there anything this man can’t do?

[@julianshepherd2038]

Be optimistic

[@johanarango835]

@@julianshepherd2038 😂

[@pyrioncelendil]

@@julianshepherd2038 He's being optimistic in assuming that Millenials will be capital-rich in a decade. 😏

[@jimluebke3869]

His bit to counter the demographic collapse he keeps warning about?

[@LiveWellUkraine]

Pronounce "nuclear."

[@phoenix0110]

One of my favourite thinker. Thanks for sharing

[@sounakmukherjee8034]

Renewables require backup storage (Lithium Ion Station, Pumped Hydro, Conversion to Hydrogen) and building up of inter-connectors ( High Voltage Transmission Lines both AC and DC). Right now in many places across the world excess Wind and Solar energy is wasted because it cannot be transmitted to a place of need or stored due to lack of Capacity. I wish in Canada we had Nuclear energy for baseload and Hydro for peakload electricity demands.

[@serafinacosta7118]

Quebec has it for base and peak. And they sell surplus to New England.

[@quantummotion]

Sounak - The baseload power for the province of Ontario IS NUCLEAR. Pickering, Darlington, and Bruce stations provide 50% of all the power, and our baseload is also 50%. What's is ridiculous is that we should be looking taking nuclear to power our steel mills AND produce the hydrogen to replace coal for steel production, as well as exporting the CANDU nuclear designs to other countries where wind and solar can't work. The CANDU nuclear designs have the following features - they can refuel while running (so no situation like what happened in France cause half the French fleet was down for refueling), they can take NATURAL Uranium (no need for enriched), Thorium, Plutonium and SPENT FUEL from other reactors as fuel, and the fuel itself is blended into ceramic pellets which help keep radioactive materials from leaking into ground water when finally used up. The CANDU designs are more expensive, as they use heavy water, and have the extra tech for on the fly refueling - but that upfront cost is used to to get fuel flexibility, remove enrichment concerns, and allow you to run the plant 24/7/365. The CANDU reactors have broken world records in the amount of uptime generating power. The solar and wind in Ontario have been useless and have only driven up costs by forcing consumers to pay for the feed-in-tariff system. Thankfully, the expansion of that has stopped. Canada also has got a gameplan for SMR and the first SMR is being built in Clarington, ON to get the whole regulatory and commissioning process worked out and streamlined.

[@Rio.Motel.84]

Canada does have nuclear in Ontario and plenty of hydro powered stations in Quebec. The electricity price in Quebec is basically 90% taxes. The hydroelectric infrastructure has long ago been paid for in this province.

[@sounakmukherjee8034]

@@quantummotion Yeah you are right, BC, Manitoba and Quebec are basically fully hydro powered. And Ontario is nuclear plus hydro. But the rest of Canada I guess hydro isn’t available and nuclear isn’t economical. I guess they wait for SMRs from Ontario, China or Rolls Royce. I wish there was a CANDU reactor in Alberta and of course across the world.

[@jmea01]

a man so smart, a great thinker, a rational calming voice. Don't pronounce Nuclear as nu-ku-lur. Great content !

[@jeffholman2364]

Why? We were once a nation of many wonderful dialects.

[@markbernier8434]

You also have to consider the service life of the equipment, wind, heat pumps wear out. I've looked into heat pumps and what I see at best break even. All your costs are up front, then you coast for a few years and just as you start to get ahead all the machinery has to be replaced.

[@pohkeee]

Power plant, approximately 30-40 years life span, some have been patched together…worked in several that were actually scary …the stresses of start ups, shutdowns and in some cases constantly varying loads are tremendous and can causes catastrophic failure if pushed beyond reasonable lifespan.

[@wisenber]

@@pohkeee "Power plant, approximately 30-40 years life span" Depends on the type. We have 75+ year old coal plants that have been progressively updated and still running at higher outputs. Gas plants require even less to update.

[@serafinacosta7118]

A lot of sunk costs into such projects. It is more of a social payback. Not great in market oriented economies. In once communist and socialist systems it might work , as they have less concern for rates of return. And micro grids it might be feasible. In specific regions. Places in Africa, Middle East , Eurasia , some coastal communities. Locales where grids are not fully integrated , rife with political and economical instability.

[@richardkammerer2814]

One of our major distributors went 100% heat pump. The systems started breaking down after six years. They reorganized their energy system as they reorganized their business.

[@dodieodie498]

I always wonder how we will be replacing the equipment. Will we be able to find a reliable source? Will we begin to produce the equipment ourselves, and when? Will someone else, like an antagonistic country, basically be controlling how much we are able to access the things we need, and will they be using our needs as leverage or to gouge us on the costs?

[@alexmcneily]

I'd like to see some analysis of Local Area Storage / Regional batteries - in order to make the most of existing capacity. For now I guess that is largely charge-at-home electric vehicles, and Tesla has built some battery farms, but some businesses are doing that too.

[@premyslhruza]

The economy part is just one part of the picture. The true trouble caused by massive (like 10+%) usage of the so called renewables is that it destabilizes the grid. A lot. What it can do is to provide some power in times where consumption need is met by their production and grid is able to balance it. Too much of disbalance and it needs to be switched off the grid temporarily. The only way it somehow works economically is when it is heavily subsidized and grid is balanced by cheap energy import from neighboring countries. This is what Germany does and it is going to be , well interresting story to follow. All in all, costly and occasionally working toy, mostly used for virtue signalling. For the regular energy production into grid it is not really suitable, unless a true breaktrough is achieved in energy storing.

[@russellhltn1396]

Another big factor is that electricity by it's nature is a "on demand" system. But solar and wind are "nature's whim" supply. Fixing that requires some kind of storage system. And that adds to costs.

[@regenwurm5584]

What is the difference between a wind turbine and an economist? The wind turbine spins in the wind, the economist spins in circles.

[@whazzat8015]

both operated by folks with no spin, er spine.

[@ThomasCrowne]

I remember when Austin didn’t look like Dallas and downtown was safe. With the cancer of condo towers, the city is just awful.

[@rickprice6312]

Additional costs that should be in the Green Energy mix if we're serious: 1. Mandate backup sources as part of the price for when the wind doesn't blow, sun doesn't shine or everything freezes. That could be construction and maintenance of backup gas generators, battery banks, whatever . . . but it needs to be priced in. People literally froze to death in TX in Feb 2020 because of overbuilding/over-reliance on wind, and the irony was that the wind was blowing like crazy. 2. Mandate end of life cleanup of these sources. Wind and solar consume vast amounts of land and have limited lifespans. At this time, old wind farms are just being abandoned in place and become a scar. Money needs to be set aside to take care of this. For the record, I would prefer to invest in nuclear along with grid modernization. I think it is a wiser course.

[@zibbitybibbitybop]

The recent progress in approval and construction of small modular nuclear plants bodes well, I think governments are finally starting to realize that nuclear is the way to go for zero-carbon baseload power. Took em long enough. France has been doing it for ages.

[@nedbluestone]

Texans froze because they are not on the national grid by choice. And Cruz went on a vacation in Mexico instead of attempting to help the people of Texas, truth matters

[@rickprice6312]

@@nedbluestone It does and you should get a clue.

[@robertkirchner7981]

I seem to remember a presidential candidate talking about the need to build smart grids. That was some time around 2000. I wonder what happened?

[@mintheman7]

Capital is getting more expensive but a lot of green tech is funded by distributed generation. Instead having to find capital to build a new 1MW power plant, 100 households will decide to put up 10kW solar panels themselves. Those are very different financing models and payback calculations. That’s why a lot of utilities are trying to transition to fixed charges so they can continue to gauge, I mean “serve” their customers. PGE just proposed a new rate schedule that charges up to $90 a month just in “infrastructure” fees, even if one use 0 watt of electricity.

[@tonespeaks]

@mintheman7 Wow, I that was really smart, many people didn't catch that about Peter's analysis. Tesla did a project (proof of concept) in Australia (victoria) and they basically have negative bills. Tesla's product is called Virtual Power Plant (If I'm not mistaken).

[@butopiatoo]

Green Energy isn’t DISPATCHABLE. Transmission losses are huge. The systems (solar and wind) rapidly depreciate (compared to a fossil fuel plant) and panels and turbines have to be replaced. The load (where electricity is used) isn’t generally where wind and solar are best produced.

[@jasonbraun]

You mentioned something in your book about 500 miles being the maximum distance/cap for batteries to power a distant area. I think this is something most green supporters don't understand. Not only would we have to build the infrastructure for transporting battery power, but there is also a maximum reach for these batteries.

[@julianshepherd2038]

We're going to build massive hydro projects in high valleys in Scotland. We have wind and hills but no battery factory so...

[@SkyRiver1]

Mega packs are for local energy storage not transmission to distant areas. That does not mean that energy that is generated by green means is not just as transmissible as that produced by hydro. The dams in Quebec sell electricity to New York and there is nothing different about electricity generated by solar or wind as far as transmission is concerned. You are comparing apples and oranges, battery packs are for local storage not transmission.

[@serafinacosta7118]

Right now, traditional energy grids work without batteries , at any built in loss factored . Batteries are cool, but there are a few companies to profit from the multiplication; of storage points. So they have their vested interests to incentivize the multiplication of regional storage points.

[@LHWinfo]

Hadn’t thought about that. Good point

[@TT-uy5el]

The same cost structure applies to nuclear power plants as well. Most of the costs are upfront for construction /refuel /overhaul

[@whazzat8015]

Not if you can externalize them to some sucker.

[@kaysi6605]

They actually are also expensive to run. Financially nuclear is a disaster

[@TT-uy5el]

@@kaysi6605 yes but relative to construction cost the majority of the cost is upfront

[@seanknox7321]

Would the same apply to a new coal plant? Just have an added cost of constant labor and resources.

[@whazzat8015]

@@seanknox7321 Toxic as coal is, it prolly doesn't take thousands of years to decay its waste. Really messes up you ROI calculations. look at the The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) , a measure of the average net present cost of electricity generation for a generator over its lifetime. Google images has the graphs.

[@mikewarbin5776]

Finely if only everybody could listen to this!!

[@yellowcottagetales]

Research dollars won't automatically translate into sufficient breakthroughs in technology. The sensible thing...which Pete knows and has said in other videos...is to use solar where it's sunny wind where it's windy...and stick to fossil fuels everywhere else. Preferably combined with nuclear, but the politics of that appears not to work. Peter's trying to be gentle in his nudging of the green catechists.

[@SkyRiver1]

Sure just ignore climate change, it's probably a left wing gambit to install a woke dictatorship anyhow. (Irony warning for the irony impaired)

[@redcoltken]

If its done then the US gets about 15 to 20 percent of power from "green" - most in the western states. Its nice but its not enough. I think we can squeeze 5% more from conservation or efficient use. So as things stand right now on paper we can get better (an make no mistake - it would be incredible to hit 25% reduction of fossil fuel use in the US) but 100 non fossil fuel use is a pure fantasy for the next 50 years.

[@idesofmarchUNIAEA]

Build a phoria molten salt reactor. We can’t blow up because it is not pressurized. It produces molybdenum 99 for cancer diagnostics therapies and we search. It also produces xenon for interstellar space travel at NASA

[@mr.makeit4037]

What's needed is a true plan as to where and how much so called sustainable energy types geographically go, as you brilliantly said. This is due to the massive mineral constraints that these technologies require. Therefore, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal (but especially nuclear) need to be at the forefront of any discussion and plans going forward.

[@kaysi6605]

And unfortunately, even with a plan, you are only one election away of those getting thrown out. In 2010 there were huge wind parks planned and funded by the UK, around the cost, most of them killed off by the incoming conservative government.

[@whazzat8015]

There is one. Fewer people using less. Build out is blowing on the wrong end of the pipe.

[@ClownCarCoup]

Hydro and Nuclear have huge upfront capital costs as well. The last U.S. nuclear plant built - Watts Bar 2 - started construction in 1972 at a projected cost of $2.6B and finally completed in 2016 at final cost of $6.1B

[@protorhinocerator142]

Any discussion of "going green" that doesn't involve nuclear is pointless. Nuclear is the answer.

[@mr.makeit4037]

@Whazzat This will absolutely without question occur in our lifetime, Not because we will voluntarily use less buy less. But mother nature will force us too.

[@henryt4695]

Daily morning cup of Zeihan!

[@calebklyne6406]

We have had wind power for my entire lifetime in Southwest Alberta. It has never turned a profit and never not been subsidized by the government. Now we have solar farms all over the place and the story is the same. We have the great sun and more wind than just about anywhere, if it doesn't work here I'm not sure where it would.

[@trentreimer130]

A cursory search cannot verify this information and in fact refutes it. I like to give all sides a listen so if you could provide sources that would be appreciated.

[@ron9381]

@@trentreimer130 the power generation from the dams on the Colorado, took 60 years to pay for the dams. With a consistent running of the turbines so there have not been any solar projects or wind projects that have paid off before they were wore out.

[@MarkRose1337]

@@trentreimer130 Solar works in southern Alberta right now. There are multiple gigawatts under construction. It couples well with natural gas that provides most of the base load: when it's not sunny, burn more gas. There are hundreds of megawatts of batteries being installed, too.

[@teekay_1]

@@MarkRose1337 Those batteries last 10 years, so that's a reoccurring cost that has to be baked into the operating costs.

[@georgeholloway3981]

That sounds fairly obviously untrue!

[@BigPictureYT]

Solar can be used to directly heat and cool buildings. It does not HAVE to be converted into electricity at ideal locations and then transported long distances. Architects have gotten really good at using the heat of the earth (55 degrees below the frost line) and passive convection currents to provide affordable home heating and cooling. The up front costs are greater than a conventional HVAC system, but these designs quickly pay for themselves. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), space heating and cooling accounted for approximately 47% of the total electricity consumption in the residential sector in the United States in 2020. If we start building passive solar homes, we will not need nearly as many minerals for solar panels.

[@wdhewson]

Don't forget the considerable greening of the earth and boost in agriculture resulting from a bit more OC2 in the atmosphere.

[@edwardsmith3062]

Doesn’t really matter if it’s disruptive to human habitation

[@wdhewson]

@@edwardsmith3062 Yes, with the obesity crisis, I suppose too much food is disruptive.

[@davidchristie696]

Extra CO2 in the atmosphere won't help plants grow if other nutrients such as phosphate, are the limiting factor.

[@alexlucassen8489]

With the green transistion we go from a Opex driven business to a Capex one. So the investments become a magnitude higher and the earnings come (much) later in time. Financing this shift will be very costly and the private sector will request a higher ROI to compensate for these issues.

[@yt.damian]

its both opex and capex. because the green energy is not sufficiently reliable you also have to add in backup power so you are both

[@NetScalerTrainer]

Or we could build a few more nuclear power plants

[@nicholascarter9158]

The economics of the whole thing is fucky. Unless you nationalize the whole process nuclear plants economic issues make it a dead letter for most investors. The plant makes no money for five to ten years of construction, then it's only competitive advantage is that it generates *less* revenue than a conventional plant.

[@BhBraaq]

So many huge geopolitical events going on and he hasn’t addressed them. Are these still his prerecorded videos while he’s backpacking in New Zealand?

[@krakhedd]

Next gen nuke is the only reliable, cheap, safe, and clean source of electricity we have. Wind and solar require HUGE tracts of land on top of all their other drawbacks and limitations.

[@jakeaurod]

Yeah, but his point about large up-front costs applies there too. And since most people don't want it in their backyard, you have to build it far away, which increases transmission costs.

[@krakhedd]

@@jakeaurod solar and wind suffer the same or worse transmission costs; they need tens or hundreds of thousands of acres to have enough production to make them economical Next-gen is as cheap as coal to build and cheaper to operate, safer, less waste. Look up MSRs and SMRs. Thorium fuel cycle is perfect for MSRs, and SMRs are more traditional U-fueled but can do Th and either way they're much smaller and cheaper than existing U-fueled

[@jeffbloke2157]

i'd love to hear you talk about the tradeoffs between clean energy vs climate change increased disruption - it seems like a natural thing to talk about in this context, but only talking about green energy and its costs seems like it is missing a huge chunk of the equation.

[@hydeparkist]

We should be lucky if whole humanity was able to keep fossile energy consumption at the same level as it is now, which is highly unrealistic. So how do you think we're 'fighting' climate change if it were true that our max. 5% contribution to 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere is changing the climate? Please, check the numbers i mentioned and think for yourself!

[@PLAYER2035]

Here in Australia we have built billions of $ of utility scale solar and wind projects and they have demonstrated to be the most profitable generators in the nation. This question has already been answered and Peter isn’t the one to do it

[@billrobinson9295]

You're in Australia. It's generally a warm climate there.That logic will not work in northern climates like Canada

[@amraceway]

@@billrobinson9295 Winters are cold but the wind is stronger then.

[@Snodgrassdsd1]

The comparative up front construction costs are relevant here. That is what is being compared today.

[@tentaken8755]

I think green energy is great for diversitification of energy. If one of the main energy source is unavailable, you can rely on all different sources of energy like hydro-powered, wind, solar, nuclear, etc to replace it until the crisis is solved. But it depends on geographic, population, time And resources.

[@pohkeee]

Yes…this can be distilled down to location, ROI, material availability, and incentives/funding.

[@rowdyriemer]

Regarding transmitting over long distances, I recall reading years ago about using DC transmission. With switching technology available today, high voltage dc transmission is now feasible. Why use DC? Over long distances, their's a significant capacitance between the transmission lines and the ground, meaning there's an AC path to ground in parallel to all the other loads. DC transmission eliminates that AC path to ground. Over a long enough distance, it might be cost effective. Of course, this solution would be a drop in the bucket of solutions required for transmitting electricity from solar panels in Arizona to some distant, less sunny state.

[@One1Raptor]

Furthermore, the so-called green energy will always need backup power for baseload energy sources like coal, gas, hydro or nuclear. Wind and solar energy is unable. Even near the equator where the sun is intens, the is a 12h nighttime, where you need something else to take over, if you don't want the air-conditioning to stop.

[@SkyRiver1]

Tesla and other companies are producing megpacks like crazy and have back orders for years. They are much less expensive than fossil peaker plants that are currently used to supplement electricity generation, and also solve the problem you present. I am quite amazed that anyone is currently unaware that this problem has been overcome years ago. And by the way, you only have a 12 hour nighttime two days a year.

[@paulkelly9250]

Yes but what always seems to be forgotten in these discussions is once you have enough batteries built, you can recycle them. Hence sustainable.

[@user-nh4tm6hh4j]

at 2:20 he's describing the pareto effect. Small changes cause huge effects.

[@randynovick7972]

Peter's hot takes on green energy are pretty thin gruel.

[@StormyDog]

Gruel mixed with fossil fuel companies dollars.

[@frankb1]

Nice day in Austin!

[@branscombe_]

our govt just built 10 windmills beside a Nuclear Power Plant here in eastern canada these 10 windmills mills will likely never generate the amount of power it costs to build them in their life times.

[@porchemoncee8169]

by the turd o regime💩💩👿👿

[@davidchristie696]

Depends on the average wind speed where the turbines have been built. The rule of wind turbines is that when you double the wind speed, you get eight times as much power. Planning and choosing the locations for these things is paramount. Where they are located appropriately, wind can be the most cost effective way to generate electricity (in Scotland, New Zealand, Azerbaijan, or the American mid west, for example.)

[@Alex-pr6zv]

If the location is windy, they will. A single revolution of a large wind turbine generates around 10 kW.

[@williamforsyth6667]

"govt just built 10 windmills" In Texas, investors are building lots of solar and wind. You can be sure, that there is no green political agenda there.

[@whazzat8015]

Just have to live longer. Japanese model

[@hungryghost3260]

I don't dispute the components of costs that you mention, but using fixed-and-variable percentages confuses the issue. I had to catch myself from comparing apples and oranges. The ["sunk" ~ capital ~ construction ~ fixed] construction costs of fossil fuel powerplants are huge. Yes, the capital cost may be only about 40% of the overall [capital + operating] costs, but that's because the fossil fuel variable costs are themselves huge. Wind and solar have a much lower percentage of variable costs, but that doesn't mean that their capital costs are that much higher in absolute dollar terms. Like I said: this is comparing apples and oranges. The way this argument is phrased herein makes it easy to assume that green energy sources will have a much higher capital cost than coal- or gas-fired powerplants. That's not a given, not a certainty. "You'll have to finance it up-front" sounds scary, but to "finance" means to [spread out ~ amortize ~ pay off] capital costs over many years. Fossil fuel powerplants always had to pay off the plants (fixed costs) AND purchase fuels as variable costs. Community co-ops, government not-for-profit energy companies, and government programs such as the "IRA" will provide and secure the necessary capital for green energy sources because people are demanding that they do so. The price inelasticity of metals, carbon fiber, and the other materials: you concede that this is the already the reality for fossil fuel sources. Moreover, assuming that new mineral /ore deposits, and new mines won't be found is a leap. We really haven't even been looking for such resources in North America because we have come to rely on cheap Russian supplies. If the relevant commodity prices rise, so too will activity in that sector. Some wealthier retirees will always want to take a chance to make a higher rate of return, on at least some of their portfolios. Even if they bought T-bills and savings bonds, the governments could then lend out the money raised to community power projects. I don't think that it's 'either...or.'

[@andrewcameron1050]

Glad I'm not the only one to pick up this apparent flaw in Peter's opinion. I fail to see how a massive solar farm and battery array could ever be more expensive to build than a nuclear plant, or even a coal fired plant. Also from my limited experience it's way quicker to build a solar array than either nuclear or coal plants.

[@hungryghost3260]

@@andrewcameron1050 I'm with you on your points. If we can just get started at some significant scale, who knows what innovations will appear over the life of any particular green facility? 🙂

[@daniellarson3068]

Build nukes - Over the 60 year life, the fuel is relatively cheap and there should be more flexibility in location. You should be able to build the nuke close to the need for the power and not string transmission lines a thousand miles from the source to the load. There are newer nuclear designs that take less materials and can be constructed faster reducing the capital cost. Any journey begins with a single step. Once we begin to build some of these the path will become clear.

[@daniellarson3068]

@A B Power will be available 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. Continuous power contributes to continuous cash flow for businesses. Less developed countries may only receive power for a few hours a day and this is not conducive to productivity. The renewables path will lead to intermittent supply unless backed up by fossil fuels. Unfortunately. despite a lot of rhetoric to the contrary, large amounts of energy are not easily stored for future use.

[@SkyRiver1]

@@daniellarson3068 How can you not be aware that this problem has been totally overcome? Big oil media propaganda is my bet.

[@jamesp3902]

@A B "There’s already plenty of nuclear in the US, but what’s the point of expanding? It’s more expensive that just going the renewables route. The legislation and incentives are already there lol" At the end, the cost of renewables becomes the cost of grid level storage. Still cheaper to make nuclear plants compared with grid level storage.

[@whazzat8015]

I like the thought that we can think 1000 years into the future for all the long term consequences of cheap nuclear..

[@daniellarson3068]

@@whazzat8015 You thinkin' spent fuel? That stuff can be recycled. By the way Plutonium has a half life of more than 20,000 years. Think long term.

[@redwoodpartisan2433]

What’s your opinion of nuclear, Mr Zeihan??

[@JinKee]

I kinda like the space based solar George Friedman has been pushing. Even if it is a terrible power source it can start a few wildfires and be one hell of a weapon.

[@jimluebke3869]

John Mankins is also a good source on Space Solar.

[@replicant_7774]

Ever heard of Thors Hammer? Basically steel telephone poles delivered from orbit

[@JinKee]

@@replicant_7774 rods from god

[@jayclark5034]

I said 30+ years ago that on-demand distributed power would be the holy grail...power produced on site so no transmission cost or storage. We still don't have that for the most part

[@sirguy6678]

Great video! Unfortunately, ideology and “good ideas” currently outweigh common sense

[@julianshepherd2038]

Got a lot of water, unlike Spain and morroco where a lot of our fruit and veg come from. Looking like it may start to be economic to grow a lot more of our salad crops. And the whisky industry is putting money into hydrogen which cuts the Nat gas use put they plan to sell a lot of it.

[@julianshepherd2038]

Good ideas are mainstream business here, even got a commercially successful tidal plant in the far north.

[@moletrap2640]

The next time you address this topic, please include Storage. It is an absolute fallacy that wind and solar are economical, without very very expensive and dirty storage they are in feasible beyond 20 to 30% of the grid.

[@msimon6808]

Beyond 10% you get instability problems without storage.

[@bkirstan]

Audio sounds great! Watch out for Bevo

[@mitchells7634]

I have been watching you for the last 2 years and for the first time I am dissapointed. You didn't mention power storage at all!

[@aleksbakman7562]

Generally reasonable general consideration. But only the quantified analysis matters

[@whazzat8015]

What is that vessel behind him at 2:16 ? I kinda miss the planes. nice substitute.

[@cricket6755]

You made excellent points on green energy only making sense based on regional areas, this assumption is based on electricity infrastructure. However the electrical transmission model is over 100 years old. I like to point out that also rethinking our electrical transmission to meet our current needs now make more sense. HVDC transmission doesn’t suffer the loss of power over large distances. In fact you could lay a HVDC cable from Europe to North America with minimal loss of current. If we are rethinking our energy sources maybe we should be rethinking our energy transmission as well.

[@VincentBurke-iv3xj]

I have solar panels on my home and they work great! But only because the house was built with a clear southern exposure in the back to collect as much power as possible out of the panels. When people ask me if they think solar would be worth it for them, I always ask... Do you have a roof with good solar exposure. That makes sense. I'm wondering if Peter knows anything about 'Iron-Air' batteries? It seems like it could be a game changer in terms of storage.

[@Moxiflox330]

Peter we need a guide for traveling New Zealand! The views in recent videos have been unbelievable.

[@jaypeterson5670]

Certain taxes are what I call "benifitial use taxes". i.e. fuel is taxed to maintained the benifit of the roads, and in agragrain societies, property is taxed as that is where the wealth is, and the taxed wealth is used to maintain education as the wealthy are the biggest benificiaries of the educated workforce, and so it goes. The "Carbon Credit" should not be issued by the privatly owned central banks, but rather by the treasury of the governmant, with all of the profits therefrom going to reduce or midigate the carbon footprint created thereby, with only political cronies being the benificiaries of benificial use of the "Carbon Credit", accepting that the system will be wrought with corruption.

[@InformedKiwi]

Sadly Peter did not mention the problem of the intermittent supply of solar and wind energy. The supply is mostly not when there is peak demand so is useless unless it can be stored. For example solar produces electricity mostly in the middle of the day and drops off and stops when the peak demand starts late afternoon. Secondly the solar production dramatically reduces in the winter. Also solar produces very little when the weather is bad. So where does the electricity come from during these times? There are partial solutions with electricity storage. It’s not quite as simple as that. Battery storage is expensive and limited, often just a few hours and definitely not a week. Pumped Hydro has a lot more storage capacity but needs the geography to have an upper and lower reservoirs. Plus the substantial cost to build. Every grid needs base supply and green Hydro and Nuclear are the base electricity providers. There are substantial short coming with both. Hydro sites have mostly been utilised so more Hydro is limited. The West has a aversion to Nuclear because of the few failures of old technology plants. Even though the cost of building and decommissioning Nuclear is expensive the latest technology is vastly different to the perceptions and should be implemented but nuclear at scale is not looking very likely. The best country are implementing green energy is by far China. With so much of every green energy Solar, Wind, Hydro and nuclear being build. China exceeds every year the implementation of EACH one of these than the rest of the world combined.

[@christopherlee5434]

I live in downstate Illinois, hundreds, if not thousands of windmills around my house. My power bill is more expensive now than any other state I’ve ever lived in.

[@LRRPFco52]

The whole thing is a giant scam, from a strict scientific perspective. I'm talking ice core data, all the thermometer stations around the world, the cyclical nature of ice ages, and the fact that humans only contribute 0.13% of CO2, which is an essential gas for human, animal, and plant life on earth.

[@jacksmith-mu3ee]

Fun fact most of illinois is made in china

[@lucas4736]

Aye I’m in Austin atm! Running into you would be wild but awesome! You’re a legend Peter!

[@jamesflynn8540]

What you doing in Austin!?!?! Hope to see you on JRE again soon!

[@godlike5178]

Ha, look into using old mines for geothermal energy or as a storage system for energy. The UK is very hopeful since 1/4 of the people live close to old unused mines ... Plus they might be able to substitute silver for copper in solar panels making them cheaper

[@thomaszanzal7846]

I was into ox-power for a period of my life. You know oxen simply walking around in a circle running different machines by the powerful leverage they provided. I always wanted to build an ox-power electric generation power plant. Just the oxen walking around in circles providing the power to create power. Oxen need two bales of hay a day to keep going and some water.

[@budbas]

Peter Z is reasonably logic. We do not have to push what we're not gifted for. If our land gifted for sunny land then build solar system. If windy then build the windmill. Force to use one way fits all will only bring inefficiency. A competitive advantage should be built upon comparative advantage. Not denying it.

[@laurinpestes5569]

You've mentioned capital, fuel, and transmission. Don't forget, most green energy today also needs storage. Lots of storage.

[@hazb8026]

No it doesn't really.thats outdated thinking and not backed up by evidence. Look to Europe which is further ahead of US on renewables. Interconnectors are where Europe is heading. Being able to move the electricity to where it's needed rather than storing it. Flexible demand with smart use as well. Dishwashers that can sense live electricity prices and turn them selves on when demand is low to make use of cheap power, that kind of thing And double use storage like EVs that can act as batteries when not in in use. Some studies put outright storage needed on a Flexi grid like this at 5 to 10 percent, but that's probably optimistic.

[@philtimmons722]

Not true. Most Solar PV is Grid-Tied and uses ZERO Storage. Yunno what required LARGE Storage? Nukes. Because while they run all night (with low demand) and cannot hit the daily peak. Here is one of the largest in the US. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant

[@Gazzapa57]

Upfront costs for renewables are higher - now - but the trend is for much lower costs in the next 5-10 years - nothing remains static.

[@kurtnunn6116]

Peter, how’s Japan’s effort to become a hydrogen economy going? I have read they are turning back to nuclear power (high temperature reactors) to create “pink” hydrogen.

[@thesilkpainter]

Si I get that the initial cost for traditional power plants us only the quarter upfront ..of the total cost, that is and for renewables it's maybe 90per cent ..but how much more expensive is it to build green?

[@bigwheelsturning]

As a kid I can remember using kerosene lamps for light at night. We played games, cards, read, and simple hobbies. The only electricity I'm using now, is my TV, chromebox, and my refer when it runs. The hot water is off for the night. Living now is not like it was, and will be again.

[@jakeaurod]

How do you know we haven't figured in the cost of the commodity materials? From what I've read by FERC and NERC, the grid is expanding and has been for decades. Expansion has been planned into it for at least the near horizon and as long as adoption of distributed loads like EVs stays where it is, then people may not run out of juice 9/10 of the way to work. BTW, that could also be managed by workers residing closer to their jobs - if we let the market work. Building new transmission lines and substations for new construction may not be factored in, but that's true for non-green generation or for new housing developments that need grid service.

[@17cmmittlererminenwerfer81]

Among the three power grids. Not between. Between is when there are two entities involved, and only two. Among is when there are more than 2.