Can the world rely on renewable energy? | Future Earth | BBC News

What are the challenges the world faces in the transition to renewable energy - and what are the possible solutions?
The BBC's Carl Nasman learns about the US' first 100% renewable-powered city; the world’s largest solar farm; and the research project literally getting energy from thin air.
This is episode three of Future Earth, a series exploring today’s most important developments in climate science and sustainability.
For more climate news and hopeful developments, subscribe to the Future Earth newsletter here: cloud.email.bbc.com/FutureEar...
00:00 Sealing off abandoned oil wells
05:47 World's largest solar farm
11:00 America's first 100% renewable energy city
14:37 Decarbonising aviation
21:19 Sand batteries
22:22 Harnessing subway heat
#FutureEarth #Climate #BBCNews

[@ResizeFilms]

The entire country of Portugal ran solely on renewable energy for six days in a row in November 2023. Portugal produced 1102 GWh of renewable energy from wind, hydropower and sun, surpassing its demand of 840 GWh, which allowed it to even export electricity to Spain. It’s a record. About 60% of Portugal’s energy comes from renewable sources today and is expected to run 100% on renewables before 2045.

[@FlipDeRiviera]

Amazing job

[@iareid8255]

Resizer, hydro power is significant in Portuigal, but also quote, "It doesn’t mean fossil fuel plants weren’t operating" The reason fo that is renewables' defficiency in critical crite ria for a stable grid supply. You cannot run a grid on asynchronous renewables alone.

[@jeanjacqueslundi3502]

@@iareid8255 That means nothing. The energy was there. The actual consumption energy. I swear to god I always come to videos on renewable energies and there's people hellbent on invalidating any good that is being done. Every time.

[@iareid8255]

Jean, grid supply needs a specific type of generator, renewables simply do not meet the requirements. They are a dead end and just make electricity more unreliable, more unstable and much more expensive. Hydro is the only renewable that does0 meet those criteria. You cannot go against the physical constraints and no amount of tecnical improvement of renewables will overcome their deficiencies. Persisting is s just ignoring reality.

[@peterdollins3610]

False hope. Because one country can do it does not mean a majority can...This is an emetgency. Face up to it, do not hide & cover your eyes.

[@abeeceedee599]

What impressed me most is that Ecosia brings all of humanity more forward than what we had in 40 years.

[@asmnazmuzzaman1703]

i worked at gosford city council New south wales....technicians worked so hard but nicely...really enjoyed the time working with them. It was a water supply

[@user-uw5hb7ff9v]

All conversations by Professor Jacobson are fascinating and the future he talks about is most encouraging.

[@lalah9481]

The legacy of these abandoned wells must include following the money of the original companies and investors. They took the money and ran. Part of investing is compliance with EPA and local laws. Greed kills.

[@juancarlosdominguez9998]

wow...I didn't know about that methano gas still going out from those holes!good for those working in canceling them!great for the city fully covered by renewable sources and also the sand battery was amazing news. I'm already subscribed to the newsletter as well! hugs from Havana

[@artlewellan2294]

Havana Juan, Do your best. Buy PHEV before any BEV automobile. Rule of thumb: heaviest EV are best PHEV. BEV better for lightweight short distance travel/transport needs. Scholastic debate. Newest automobile manufacturing company: PHAT CAR (pronounced FAT CAR) Plug-in Hybrid Automobile Travel company NYC stock exchange. Just me dreamin'.

[@Julian_Wang-pai]

Top stuff - great that you managed to be positive for almost half an hour. That's a refreshing change in this sphere 👏👏👏

[@stanleytolle416]

In my area a old pipe line was cut and since nothing seemed to be coming out they simply burried the cut pipe next to the house they were building. Of course a house with the family in it blewup killing the family. Developers are still resisting regulations restriting building on top of old oil fields.

[@sophiadaly4712]

What country was this and where? So sad that happened!

[@stanleytolle416]

@@sophiadaly4712 Firestone, Colorado, USA. What's weird people go nuts when oil companies want to drill anywhere near neighborhoods but developers build houses with working oil fields in them and in Firestone right over an working oil field with working under ground gas lines. Like, often these lines in old fields do not have allot of gas coming through them and this methane does not have a smell so cutting a pipe does not seem like a big deal. In the Firestone case the contractor simply cut the pipe and filled in the foundation hole. Again, no smell because it is pure methane so the relatively new house blew up killing a family.

[@sophiadaly4712]

@@stanleytolle416 thanks for explaining. Do you reckon better regulations, both in education of engineers and in tampering with pipes during construction could avoid these incidents? Or something else?

[@stanleytolle416]

@@sophiadaly4712 Yeah, but try to get laws and regulations pasted with so many politicians in the pockets of the developers.

[@gery4870]

My honest question: Do we have enough raw materials (also including recycling) to make the energy transition ? I am on with renewable and EV, but it's my biggest concern :/

[@jonathaneffemey944]

Thanks for posting.

[@philliprobinson7724]

Hi. Great content, thanks. The "sand battery" is better called a "recoverable heat sink", but what a great idea. Not much different to my Grandma's ancient woodfired Aga cooker that heated up the cast iron and stone surround which then released the heat during the night to keep the whole Robinson mansion nice and cosy. The washing was hoisted up to the ceiling and dried in no time. (By "mansion", I mean---nah, never mind.) Cheers, P.R.

[@Suburp212]

Excellent review.

[@bobbresnahan8397]

There is a difference between renewable energy and emission-free energy. Bio-fuel emits CO2 and other bad stuff. We need to transition to 100% emission-free, basically solar, wind, and batteries (SWB). When I got going in climate change, renewable sounded great. In fact, I founded a group called Renewable Taos. As time went on and we made local progress, we realized that we really need to focus on emission-free. That is the only proper focus to avert catastrophic climate change. It's a transition, so bio-fuels have some reason. But, they are actually very dirty. SWB is the actual solution. Cooking oil and ethanol are actually bad sources of energy.

[@user-hh6ex9md4w]

Thank you for sharing your knowledge about renewable energy. I completely agree with your focus on emission-free energy sources like solar, wind, and batteries. Speaking of batteries, have you heard of the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? It's a versatile powerhouse with a massive capacity, powerful output, and fast recharging time. It's perfect for outdoor enthusiasts and RV lovers looking for reliable power backup solutions.

[@user-nb5sr7by6y]

Of course. It is just a matter of time. Regeneratives are available right now, and would greatly accelerate an all-sustainables global economy. The build out of primary inputs will take some time. But, at some point renewables heavy energy production would be the norm.

[@knightblueyan5682]

In his book Rethinking Humanity, Tony Seba along with James Arbib, the founders of Rethink X, say that not only is ditching fossil fuels possible but economical. They say that the transition to solar, wind, and batteries will happen for economic reasons meaning that in 10 years time, most fossil fuel projects will become stranded assets. It’s worth a read

[@fbenniks]

Their new book Bighter is a great read, it is a real positive but grounded explanation of current state of affairs and the future. And it is bright, brighter than we think:) Well if it all works out:P

[@flemlion13]

So the first part is an add to why we should stop drilling, thanks

[@stanleytolle416]

It's not new drilling causing the problem but old drilling and pipes where developers build on top of these old fields. Developers have pushed to prevent regulation's where they can build. Often developers can get abandoned oil drilling fields cheap and clean off the surface equipment and have a place to build without the people they sell to ever knowing the history of the land to which their buildings are built on.

[@flemlion13]

@@stanleytolle416 it all starts with drilling and indeed already before anything gets to the end user, the pollution already starts through leaks, energy use, cobalt use and so on.

[@stanleytolle416]

@@flemlion13 this drilling is often in the middle of nowhere. Like the Firestone case was originally on a desolate hillside not even good for cattle grazing. Fifty years before oil drilling took place. Often mineral rights and surface rights are all mixed up. Like oil and coal companies have rights to extract under ones house or they have done it. Uncapped wells, coal mines, underground fires are all over the place with no mapping. Of course developers want as few regulation's as possible. Surface soil testing is required due to expanding soil, another story, but history of land use is not. A little wild wild West here.

[@ghaloise]

For the metane emission, Dairy/beef industries should have been mention since they are the greatest emitors by far.

[@eitkoml]

There is a type of seaweed that eliminates the vast majority of methane emissions from cattle. Very little is needed in a cow's diet to have this effect at low cost. A regulation to require this seaweed to stop bovine methane emissions would be very cheap to implement and have an enormous effect. Not surprisingly the beef and dairy industries do everything they can to block such regulations from being passed and they won't self-regulate their methane emissions.

[@andrewtrip8617]

The sea ,tropical rainforests ,wetlands and termites are all larger methane emitters than beef and dairy farming .by far !

[@abeeceedee599]

Does anyone else think that Ecosia could potentially reshape the landscape as we know it? The long-term implications could be profound.

[@liemto9485]

Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia should first hold negotiations with each other on the East Sea (Spratly Islands) dispute, and then discuss this issue with China.

[@manmaje3596]

I see AI is out n full force in the comments section. This video was posted 15 minutes ago and every single comment bar a few including mine are referring to some obscure an Amazon product. KZbin, BBC sort it out!

[@hgbnkbggj2915]

Indeed. Never seen it so bad.

[@donpedro00769]

Lmao fr though

[@daveoc5770]

Bro, money is running out in Ukraine, what do you think all the Ukrainian bots were going to do once people lost interest in them

[@ianhamilton3113]

@@daveoc5770 Oh! don't worry, we are still very interested in Ukraine.

[@daveoc5770]

@@ianhamilton3113 "we"?

[@OldOneTooth]

Pity the latest figures say we've hit 1.54 this year having hit 1.5 for periods over earlier years. Most notable this year was the size of the jump, that the oceans around el nino don't look like they normally do which is to say instead of looking cooler they look hotter. The latest predictions pointout we're adding renewable on top of existing fossil fuel. Renewable is being used to meet new demand not replace old sources. The best predictions say 1.7 by 2030 and 2 degrees within 15 years or by 2038 and these maybe conservative as tipping points have been reached and the tipping we were warned of has occurred. The huge loss of albedo from missing ice means massive ocean warming. Boreal forests are converting themselves to tundra, temperate and tropical forests to grasslands in massive wildfires because we've taken too long. The roller coaster is moving and now natural processes will multiply the effects of the emissions we have failed to reduce. Climate zones are determined by latitude, altitude, topography and wind and ocean currents driven by temperature differentials. We've shifted those currents, slowed them and induced more, slower moving and larger oscillations in the jetstream. This means faster more severe, longer lasting droughts, longer cold snaps with heavier precipitation causing flooding and record snows. Our infrastructure built for one climate is going to face extremes and frequencies it wasn't designed for. Our crops and the biomes they evolved in will nolonger match the climates they are planted in. Fruit trees will set leaves instead of flowers due to warm winters, grain will rot in floods and prematurely die and dry off in heatwaves, continuing to push up world food prices, while leaving growing numbers hungry. Topsoil will be eroded in floods and blown away as dust at alarming rates. This bbc feel good is talking about the solutions to yesterdays problems, that were not able to be adequately implemented on time. The world has moved on and we need new solutions to adapt to the consequences of our failure to respond in time.

[@elephante1725]

Hmm your message sounds suspiciously like a WEF sales promo 🤔 😂😂😂😂 What utter tripe you just posted, tell me the solution....TAX THE POOR! RESTRICT THE MOVEMENT OF THE POOR ONLY! FORCE THE POOR TO EAR LESS MEAT! CONTROL THE POOR!

[@freeheeler09]

Yep! And the result will be tens of people starving and tens of millions more moving north. The political and social disruption will be massive.

[@deaththekid3998]

Well the new demand could be met with fossil fuels instead, so it’s a good thing it’s not happening. And population will start decreasing soon, the energy demand will go down, so at that point the more expensive plants, the fossil ones, will be shut down first.

[@OldOneTooth]

@@deaththekid3998 or we find new ways to use the energy as we have in the past, like data centers. Plus the plans of opec aren't to supply the rest of the world with renewable dependent infrastructure but cheap fossil fuel cars etc. Waiting for the predicted population decline will be to long as natural forcing from tipping points passed will have kicked in. Renewables are dependent on finite resources and have a limited lifespan, it's our energy demands that have to drop. There's a reason the richest people in the richest countries have the biggest footprint. Our population could half but our footprints could increase 100 fold and still not satisfy the growing demand.

[@felipearbustopotd]

No doubt all those solar panels in Morocco were mined, built, transported with fossil fuels, not green at all.

[@ashy969]

Better than not having them at all... But also... They forget to mention that they mostly sell the generated electricity at a high price....

[@felipearbustopotd]

@@ashy969 So they are exploiting / fleecing the end user for greed?

[@superspeeder]

Sustainable Aviation Fuel math: 400M gallons = 10% of the current market use Then 5M gallons currently used is 0.125% of aviation fuel usage. Gold Star! ⭐️

[@sylphsh]

The London tube/underground is super hot in summer, it’s unbearable! Please fix!

[@public.public]

Yes ... eventually.

[@eclipsenow5431]

Burlington Vermont only has 44k people. If you REALLY want to see what high penetration renewables looks like, study South Australia. They're the hightest wind and solar per capita in a larger city in the world

[@Suburp212]

Despite no incentives and super conservative governments trying to prevent it. This is real economics talking.

[@pioternietz496]

DIGITAL ENERGY SERVICES as well as extensive services up to and including operation and maintenance services for PV power plants round off the SMART CONNECTED RANGE.

[@umfuturopossivel2137]

Wind and solar energy demands a huge quantities of non renewable materials.

[@rofekahmed3976]

That is really good hopefully the technology will mature and become wide spread. I wish we could have a solar panel on every roof

[@HSI_Simon]

So interesting for posted content..

[@kiwidenk]

I don't know about saying Burlington is 100% renewable, this only seems to refer to the electricity grid, not transport, also not city heating according to one website, whatever that means exactly, might be a lot in their climate. Transport is usually around 30% of emissions. If they had gotten everyone to buy an electric car they would have mentioned that somewhere surely, this would cut transport emissions to about half, 15%, still perhaps not enough. It is common to talk about being 100% renewable without counting transport, this seems rather self-deluding avoiding addressing the probable need for walkable, "15 minute", cities or communities bypassing transport where possible.

[@ammini999]

The renewable energy itself is not enough, unfortunately I would add, some nuclear plants are necessary, in Italy we don't have it but we buy loads of energy from France that produces it with that.

[@tychodragon]

Its even worse, Companies cheap out on cleanup and often just leave them be to save money paying off any fines or expenses because they are so minimal

[@roinretrospect8388]

19:30 wasn’t Tesla was killed for figuring that out 🤔

[@riclou1910]

The most important thing is not where the energy comes from, it is how, and in what proportion, we use it. Firstly we have to reduce our standard of living, we don't need all these products and services to live happily and healthily.

[@NavBrah]

Having worked in the clean energy and renewables space for many years, I’ve seen a lot of misinformation touted in these interviews. Renewables are an intermittent source of energy. When comparing the price of renewables to other sources like baseload nuclear or fossil fuel energy generators, you need to look at the total system costs. These system costs include the transmission infrastructure needed to transport energy to consumers, and also the enormous amount of storage that’s needed when the renewables aren’t generating anything. If you include the cost of all this extra infrastructure, it is much higher than the cost consumers currently paid for their existing baseload generators. Moreover, the area footprint for renewable generation is much larger and conventional based generators. We need to ask ourselves where we’re going to get all the necessary minerals to realise these nets zero fantasies by governments where are we going to get a cobalt, nickel vanadium, silver?? There aren’t enough known reserves for these minerals at the present time? All these discussions about sustainable aviation, fuels are fanciful. Here, again. You need to look at the total system costs, which include harvesting all the biomass and organic resources, transport, costs and refining costs. How much landmass are we going to have to commit for these biomass fuels? And is that the most sustainable outcome for this biomass?

[@tibsyy895]

The world should build sand batteries hand over fist! I still hear the old mantra: "The wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine!" This problem is non existant anymore! BBC go and promote this tech ASAP!

[@marnig9185]

Yes,it's obvious.

[@user-zf9dv8kg7q]

With global temperatures hitting record highs, and extreme weather events affecting people around the globe, this year’s UN climate change conference, COP28, is a pivotal opportunity to correct course and accelerate action to tackle the climate crisis. COP28 is where the world will take stock of progress on the Paris Agreement - the landmark climate treaty concluded in 2015 - and chart a course of action to dramatically reduce emissions and protect lives and livelihoods.

[@auro1986]

question is can bbc and gang be satisfied with less profitable renewable energy?

[@ianhamilton3113]

What?

[@FlameofDemocracy]

Yes. It's far more lucrative to go with green energy, conservation, smart power upgrades, regenerative portfolios, and natural abundance. The hydrogen economy is also a part of the campaign, standing alongside best practices, as well.

[@MB-xe8bb]

All the renewable energy stocks are down 30-50% in the last year or 2. Lucrative?

[@iareid8255]

Simple answer, not a chance. Intermittency is the biggest and an unsurmountable problem. Then add the fact that renewables cannot balance supply and demand being uncontrollable. It has no inertia essential for frequency stability. It provides no reactive power essential for stable grid voltage It does not support short circuit current levels essential for timely and proportional grid protection systems operation. It cannot provide a black start capability when the inevitable grid collapse of too much renewable input to a grid occurs.

[@user-so2ci1dq4z]

This is what part of science should be for.

[@babalonkie]

Yes. But that means less profits and control the for the mega-rich. The Entire universe is powered on renewable energy.

[@TimEngbergSongs]

Are there enough raw materials for renewables?

[@fbenniks]

yes

[@josemercado3063]

Who cares? It's impossible to replace GEOLOGICAL MAGNITUDE ORDERS OF ENERGY (Ghawar oil field, for instance) with anything build by human beings. A STOCK accumulated during tens of million of years cannot be replaced with a FLUX. Besides, are you aware of this?: "Global conventional crude oil production peaked in 2008 at 69.5 mb/d and has since fallen by around 2.5 mb/d." (Page 45 of the World Energy Outlook 2018 by the International Energy Agency.)

[@MrRocking4ever]

@@fbenniks no !

[@lalah9481]

Greed kills.

[@petephone9353]

What does upstate New York mean ? State of New York rather than the city of New York? Upstate= in the mountains? or upstate= in the north of the state ?

[@gamingtonight1526]

The BBC's job, across it TV and Radio, is to be positive. It doesn't matter how bad the facts are! Re: Airlines, much quicker would be better investment in public transport, train, bus and boat, so that planes trips less than 4 hours long can be banned. Because it's these short flights that are the most polluting!

[@loveLTi]

A factual non-biased documentary, are you sure this is a BBC programme? Martyn. 23:43

[@farber2]

How do we run farm tractors, not with solar or wind power.

[@josemercado3063]

Oxen, mules and horses?

[@farber2]

@@josemercado3063 Feed 8 billion people that way?

[@lilbaz8732]

Hydrogen. Biofuel. Even batteries.

[@farber2]

@@lilbaz8732 We are going to feed 8 billion people with hydrogen powered farm tractors?

[@IAmTheStig32]

"You want coal? We own the mines." "You want oil? Well, we own the fields." "You want nuclear? We own the uranium." "You want solar and wind? Well, we own the- oh, erm... Solar and wind just isn't feasible, you see?"

[@hholton7245]

In October 2022 UN Under Secretary General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming speaking at the WEF event said that any search on Google always returned their data on climate change. She then stated that “we (the UN) own the science” So much for independent climate science?

[@amosbatto3051]

Shame on BBC for spreading Delta Airlines' greenwashing. Global aviation represents 2.4% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but roughly 3.7% of anthropogenic radiative forcing in 2018 came from aviation, and aviation emissions are growing 5% per year. Sostainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is not a real solution. It may have net zero CO2 emissions, but Lee et al (2021) estimates that global aviation in 2018 had a radiative forcing of 100.9 mW/m2, of which 57.4 mW/m2 was from contrail cirrus clouds, 34.3 mW/m2 from CO2, 17.5 mW/m2 from NOx, 2.0 mW/m2 from stratospheric water and 0.94 from soot. In other words, SAF will only solve a third of the problem, but does nothing to address the other two thirds of the problem. Hydrogen planes are potentially worse than today's planes, because hydrogen planes will emit even more water vapor, leading to more contrails and more cirrus cloud formation, plus hydrogen tanks are high problematic from an engineering point of view. The only real solution is battery electric planes and VTOLs for short distance flights and airships and hybrid airplanes for long distance flights. Another option is switching more travel to electric high-speed trains or hyperloops. Hybrid airplanes can switch to their electric motors when passing through atmospheric conditions where cirrus cloud formation is likely. Until electric and hybrid planes are developed, the only solution is for planes to try to fly around areas in the atmosphere where cirrus cloud formation is likely, and the BBC should have asked Delta whether it would spend the extra money in fuel and incur the disruption of flight time schedules to do that. It was very poor journalism by the BBC to not understand the science and to not ask Delta the relevant questions, rather than letting the airline spew its greenwashing nonsense about SAFs. The methane from fossil fuel sources has a GWP-20 (global warming potential over 20 years) of 82.5 and a GWP-100 of 29.8 (IPCC AR6 WGI, 2021), meaning that 1 gram of methane has the same greenhouse warming effect as 82.5 grams of CO2 over 20 years or 29.8 grams of CO2 over 100 years. which is a lot more than "a greenhouse gas several times more potent than CO2", as this video said at 02:02. Since methane lasts an average of 12 years in the atmosphere (technically, its perturbation time), it has a higher impact in the short term.

[@veronicahoyos-leonard2459]

We already are at 2 degrees warmer in 2023. So the notion that we are going To limit temp to 1.5 is delusional.

[@grindupBaker]

There's no point in lying about plain fact like you'all bunch do when the actual facts from scientific organizations are all over the internet (e.g. UK Met Office but there's hundreds). Really, what's even the point in lying like you do ? No point at all. www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2022/2021-hadcrut5-wmo-temperature-statement#:~:text=Authoritative%20assessment&text=They%20reported%20that%202021%20was,all%20datasets%20used%20by%20WMO

[@rufflivee]

Does anyone else think Amazon's AMK33X might be a bit overhyped, or is it just me?

[@ramontrevinosantoyo3303]

EN ESTE VIDEO SE MUESTRAN VARIOS DETALLES INOVADORES QUE SE PUEDEN APLICAR EN OTROS PAISES. UNO DE ELLOS FUE UN ACUMULADOR LLENO DE ARENA PARA CAPTURAR CALOR DEL SUBWAY Y APROVECHARLO PARA CALEFACION DE VARIOS EDIFICIOS.

[@pargevkarapetyan2251]

Great job,sealing old oil and gas wells 👌👍

[@josemercado3063]

Easy peasy project: "The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission estimates the number of undocumented orphan wells to be between 310,000 and 800,000, though due to poor record keeping during much of the industry's century and a half of production, that number is likely even higher."

[@pargevkarapetyan2251]

@@josemercado3063 look like impossible task to complete.No way they can seal even small percentage of those old wells.

[@thinkhine8866]

Why inflation in USA ? Why electric bill in inflation ?

[@mikeshafer]

Looking forward to seeing how the nuclear industry returns in strength with small modular reactors. I'm also happy to see Airbus developing hydrogen powered airplanes. We can produce the hydrogen for free from nuclear power plants!

[@JLCC2022]

We really have to ponder this: why do the UK citizens pay a few times MORE than most people in the world when the renewables can now be even cheaper than energy from fossil fuels? To put it into perspective, in some Asian countries that only use natural gas to generate electricity, they pay only 10-12p per kwh (without standing charge) while we are paying bloody 27p per kwh + 35-40p standing charge per day! How could ours be that expensive? There must be something wrong with our system! Our government must fix this or everyone in the UK will continue to suffer badly, both socially and economically.

[@simpledragon]

The new tech can make a difference if power generation is a human right and we can let middle and lower incomes pool their money together and fund a windmill or something literally giving the power to the people.

[@brianwilson4592]

Burlington might have 100% renewable energy, but it is far from zero carbon emissions. In fact with one third of its electricity coming from burning biomass, it is in fact a big emitter of greenhouse gases.

[@biggusdoggus]

That carbon was fixed from the atmosphere when the plants were growing, which was very recently.

[@umfuturopossivel2137]

Methane are being emmited since the first oil wheel was drilled.

[@CriticalTheoryIsNonsense]

Not at the moment. Maybe in the future.

[@containedhurricane]

Still waiting for the space-based solar panel technology

[@davestagner]

By the time we get that, ground-based solar will have already won.

[@containedhurricane]

@@davestagner Ground-based solar panels take too much space and aren't as effective as the space-based one

[@davestagner]

@@containedhurricane How much space do ground receivers for space-based solar take? But seriously, “too much space” isn’t a defensible argument. There’s plenty of rooftops and parking lots, in addition to wide open spaces. Ultimately, though, it’d take 20 years to get space-based solar working at meaningful scale, IF we started now with an all-in effort. Ground-based solar is doubling every 2-3 years, in large part because you don’t need billions of dollars and tremendous engineering efforts and international cooperation to put up a solar panel. I do not understand the obsession with doing the most technologically difficult and ridiculously expensive approaches to getting rid of fossil fuels, when something simple and cheap is right there in front of our noses.

[@containedhurricane]

@@davestagner I bet it will require the space of a desert to match the power gained from a few space-based solar panels. If the space-based ones weren't potentially more lucrative in the long run, the UK scientists wouldn't plan to make them

[@davestagner]

@@containedhurricane Has a government invested at least a billion dollars into the idea? Is there a timeline? Could they have it in production by 2030? If the answer to any of these is “no”, then it’s going to have a very difficult time. The problem with all of these super-high-tech, incredibly complex solutions that have never been tried before is lead time. Ground-based solar is happening NOW, and costs are becoming very predictable - more predictable than another fossil fuel plant. It’s also the cheapest source of energy today, and battery costs are scaling and dropping to match. If it takes just ten years to get space-based solar started - and that’s aggressive - ground-based solar will have more or less wiped out coal and a lot of natural gas by then, on cost alone. At which point, what does space solar have to offer, other than cost, complexity, and massive risk?

[@HolloMatlala1]

Pledge or Tax....Choice or Decision...The Carrot or The Stick...ProActive or ReActive approach....The Time is in our Hands. There's only 1 Earth

[@lola19444]

❤

[@TechnicalShivam-bh1hv]

Love You All Sir Ji and All Mam❤️❤️❤️. (Please save the Earth🙏🙏🙏) (कृपया पृथ्वी को बचाएं🙏🙏🙏)

[@jeffreyroberts4637]

Renewable energy, and reaching net zero, currently, there is a lot of effort put into persuading people to buy electric cars, and install heat pumps, while these attempts may be done with the best of intensions, but unfortunately this is the equivalent to putting the (cart before the horse) If everyone switched over in the next few years, the only way we have of suppling enough electricity to power all these devices, would be to pump more natural gas through our gas powered generating plants. I believe that our top priority should be to build much more renewable energy generating Capacity, together with energy storage, because energy storage is the key to making any Renewable energy system a realistic alternative to fossil fuels. But how much more renewable energy generating capacity do we need? I say 50% more than would be needed on a typical day, so that the surplus can be stored as Green chemical energy, probably Green Hydrogen for days when the sun does not shine, and the wind does not blow, but also, as fuel for heavy vehicles, ships, planes and anything else were batteries or a cable would not be appropriate. For most of the world, renewable energy will be in the form of solar or wind, but in some places wave or tidal energy would be an option and a few places will have the option of a base load generated by nuclear, but most will need some form of energy storage, luckily there is a huge range of options trying to get your attention, from a variety of battery types, from sodium-ion or sulphur variants, redox flow batteries, Nickel Hydrogen, to domes filled with CO2 as part of a compressed gas system, but not lithium-ion batteries, which keep getting more expensive due to rarity of the materials they are made from, plus, there is environmental damage caused by the mining and processing of these materials, then there are the slightly unusual options employing the raising and lowering of weights to store energy. Then there is long-term storage, for when the wind and the sun don’t play ball for days or even weeks at a time. Every winter the U.K. is subject to meteorological weather events, known as a blocking high pressure system, which can last for up to two weeks at a time, and they usually come complete with a blanket of cloud, which further reduces an already limited amount of light for solar panels, plus there is little, or no wind for the wind turbines, leaving us with just nuclear power stations, that supply only 30% of our energy needs, which will go nowhere near meeting our energy demands, put simply we need a system that can store and supply between 60 to 70% of our energy needs for up to a month each winter, only a chemical storage system, such as green Hydrogen would have the capacity to storage energy for such a period, if we are not to fall back onto fossil fuels. It has been suggested that large scale energy storage is unnecessary, and that we should rely on interconnectors under the sea to transfer electricity backwards and forwards between ourselves and Europe, on the assumption that some part of Europe will always have a surplus we can use, but I can see a scenario where eastern Europe is suffering a winter cold snap and needs all the energy it can get, Britain and the low countries are stuck under a blocking high pressure system, so no wind, plus Spain and Portugal are covered by rain bearing cloud, so minimal solar power, and such a situation would not be that unusual, and given recent developments with the war in Ukraine to satisfy a small man’s ego, it would be extremely unwise to assume that our partners in Europe will always be willing, or even able to supply us with what we want, when we want it, generating and storing our own surplus energy, means we stay in control. Interconnectors under the sea would be nice to have but should not be relied upon. Another idea doing the rounds, says we build the bare minimum amount of renewable Capacity, and use smart technology to switch on or off an internet of things, as a way of balancing supply and demand, where large tech companies would control the operation of everything from large factories, to your domestic washing machine or fridge, I believe this is a distraction, I believe that the big technology companies could build such a smart system, but I also believe that the tech companies already have too much control over our lives, and I believe our goal should be to build 50% more renewable capacity than we need, so the excess can be stored, and we do not have to rely on a smart system that could be hacked.

[@OneDaveAtaTime]

See previous BBC documentary on nuclear energy breakthrough

[@abdulvahapbaki769]

So Amazons new AMK33X is closing tomorrow, the idea is that many people will have a better and easier life but it is something to use while it is still possible

[@lloydjones3371]

Mirror concentrators are not as cost effective as solar panels

[@grindupBaker]

Because it's new technology, too custom. Needs economies of scale, production-line manufacturing.

[@lilbaz8732]

It can store for 8 hours. So are solar panels with energy storage still cheaper?

[@clowncarqingdao]

Pretty much a dumb question. For 4.1 billion years renewable energy was the only form on energy.

[@spacewatcher-_-3717]

Massive Solar Energy Fields Could Alter Weather Patterns on planet earth in the future

[@tiagodasilva1124]

Huge parts of Brazil and Paraguay rely only on hydro electricity since decades, congrats Vermont to joining the club, but claiming to be a pioneer is laughable.

[@tedzehnder961]

For a modern way of life, only battery technology for a city size grid to store power has to be invented that can be recharged unlimited times and is cheap enough that people won`t want to go to war over the resources needed. when we need it and what we need it for is the only way billions of people can have a productive life and use renewables only. Timing is everything for wind and solar. I don`t want to live like SA or some other 3rd world country lives. I read somewhere that cheap and plentiful elements for energy storage is feasible and has been invented already . Liquid metal (hot metals, three metals when liquid don`t mix and can be the anode and cathode and the one in the middle ) battery storage has been tested and this is one way to store large amounts if done by group of investor along with government.

[@futbol_cr7_lm10]

Amazon's AMK33X is making waves, and I'm here just trying to catch up with the tide.

[@lokesh303101]

Rely on Renewable Energy is Absolutely Yes! The other source of energy.

[@thinkhine8866]

Water ,Sun ,wind ,sand ,falling the leaves and sand can get electricity and create and produces all electric items have both solar and electric products. All people don't waste money and governments don't waste money and increase and good economy in all countries.

[@vthilton]

Save Our Planet Now!

[@vidiad]

harder

[@jasonrhl]

Sorry the town of 50k people 100% renewables but burning 25% doesn’t make it 100%. A city in Australia has over 1.5 million population running 80-100% and exporting is something you should have reported on.

[@MOOD1701D]

I literally lie awake at night scared of societal collapse and human extinction.

[@karlwheatley1244]

"I literally lie awake at night scared of societal collapse and human extinction." Speaking as a researcher, that unfortunately means you're one of the small percentage who understand how big and intractable the threats are. I lose a lot of sleep too.

[@pinoyyoutubekomiks7813]

The battery is better and better. Electric motors is the best for the good of our mother earth.

[@mauropavia64]

Renewable cannot solve the problem alone. The proper mix of energy sources for co2 reduction is made by nuclear for the baseline, renewable and gas where the last two are not available.

[@hunterspeak4370]

nuclear is already more expensive than green energies. also with nuclear you always get privatised profits and socialised costs in the end

[@mauropavia64]

@@hunterspeak4370 this is not true. Renewable cost per MWh is comparable to the nuclear cost per MWh for plants built in 5-6 years, with the advantages of scalability and low impact

[@theodoredesmarais4219]

Wrong it is happening battery grid etc

[@mauropavia64]

@@theodoredesmarais4219the battery cost is unbearable!!

[@mauropavia64]

No. The overnight costs of a gen 3 nuclear plants is €6B, which makes the price per MWh competitive to gas plants. The financial costs depends on the government decision to subsidize the construction of the nuclear plants, like they do for the renewables.

[@elijahfreeman3997]

SAS code green

[@justinekunobe8263]

Renewable electric is beneficial to our climate.

[@Nabeelboragrag1]

👍

[@Paradoxisthefingerprintofgod]

you have to flare it

[@LabRat10101]

No.

[@ianhamilton3113]

Or Maybe.

[@compostjohn]

Nice, but greenwash from the aviation industry. What needs to be said is 'we need to fly less' - but will an industry based on making profit from air transport ever say 'consume less to reduce the footprint'?

[@fredflintstoner596]

Mrs Richards: "I paid for a room with a view !" Basil: (pointing to the lovely view) "That is Torquay, Madam ." Mrs Richards: "It's not good enough!" Basil: "May I ask what you were expecting to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window ? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically past?..." Mrs Richards: "Don't be silly! I expect to be able to see the sea!" Basil: "You can see the sea, it's over there between the land and the sky." Mrs Richards: "I'm not satisfied. But I shall stay. But I expect a reduction." Basil: "Why?! Because Krakatoa's not erupting at the moment ?"

[@whitefiredarksun]

When did the interview at the 8 minute mark happen? He says we have 8 years for "tripling." We have only 6 years. 6 years from today is 11/21/2029. This ambition seems unrealistic when countries are unwilling to spend their trillions on green energy.

[@MspMsp-wz7eu]

So, Amazon's AMK33X is the new kid on the block. Let's see if it lives up to the playground rumors.

[@theodoredesmarais4219]

Liquid Hydrogen: Zeri Avia is doing it no other option

[@yfup7_]

If you're in the loop, then Amazon's AMK33X isn't news to you. But for the rest of us, mind sharing a bit more?

[@samhadlington7076]

I am none the wiser as to whether the world can rely on renewable energy. Lot's of cool tech here but no real numbers on how scaleable they are 🤷

[@josemercado3063]

It's impossible to replace GEOLOGICAL MAGNITUDE ORDERS OF ENERGY (Ghawar oil field, for instance) with anything build by human beings. A STOCK accumulated during tens of million of years cannot be replaced with a FLUX. Besides, are you aware of this?: "Global conventional crude oil production peaked in 2008 at 69.5 mb/d and has since fallen by around 2.5 mb/d." (Page 45 of the World Energy Outlook 2018 by the International Energy Agency.)

[@user-so2ci1dq4z]

Should be titled today's earth

[@berserkirclaws107]

No. Next video.

[@ianhamilton3113]

Still your pointless comment does add to the stats which will ensure even more people will see this. In fact it's probably why KZbin suggested it for me. Ironic isn't it?

[@zaurenstoates7306]

It's a bit of a half truth that renewables are cheaper than conventional alternatives. Yeah it's cheaper, if you don't include the necessary storage, transmission and nation wide interconnectivity needed to reduce storage needs. It's akin to me selling you the cheapest house on the market, but failing to disclose it still needs a roof and foundation