Can We Make Electricity Without Fossil Fuels?: Crash Course Climate & Energy #3

Nearly a third of all our greenhouse gas emissions come from generating electricity. Scientists agree that we have to find ways to make electricity without releasing so much carbon dioxide into the air. In this episode of Crash Course Climate and Energy, we’re going to tell you about some of the ways scientists and engineers are decarbonizing the electricity supply with energy sources such as solar, wind, nuclear, and hydroelectric and the benefits and drawbacks of each.
Chapters:
Introduction: Decarbonizing Electricity 00:00
Electricity From Solar & Wind Power 2:05
Challenges of Solar & Wind Power 3:36
Hydroelectric Power 6:46
Nuclear Power 8:21
Why Carbon-Free Electricity Matters 9:52
Review & Credits 11:35
Sources:
docs.google.com/document/d/1r...
***
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Thanks to the following patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Katie, Hilary Sturges, Austin Zielman, Tori Thomas, Justin Snyder, DL Singfield, Amelia Ryczek, Ken Davidian, Stephen Akuffo , Toni Miles, Steve Segreto, Kyle & Katherine Callahan, Laurel Stevens, Stacey Gillespie (Stacey J), Burt Humburg, Allyson Martin, Aziz Y, DAVID MORTON HUDSON, Perry Joyce, Scott Harrison, Mark & Susan Billian, Alan Bridgeman, Rachel Creager, Breanna Bosso, Matt Curls, Jonathan Zbikowski, Jennifer Killen, Sarah & Nathan Catchings, team dorsey, Trevin Beattie, Eric Koslow, Jennifer Dineen, Indika Siriwardena, Jason Rostoker, Shawn Arnold, Siobhán, Ken Penttinen, Nathan Taylor, Les Aker, William McGraw, ClareG, Rizwan Kassim, Constance Urist, Alex Hackman, Jirat, kelsey warren, Katie Dean, Thomas Greinert, Wai Jack Sin, Ian Dundore, Justin, Mark, Caleb Weeks
__
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Instagram - / thecrashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids

[@SiTiX1]

Geothermal power plants are always underrepresented in these types of videos and discussions. Even though they can be a great - if not the best - option in many places.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

Actually, not very many places.

[@Paulthored]

Most places. And the places where it's good, _usually_ have other drawbacks.

[@punkdigerati]

With ORC we can even use lower grade heat closer to the surface. The other big thing we can use geothermal energy for is more directly heating and cooling which is a big chunk of what we use energy for.

[@Ryantrock8888]

I was looking for this comment

[@TheBenIsEpic]

Agreed! Currently my head is exploding because they did not talk about geothermal. Ussually the crash course material is absolutely top tier, but this is a big oversight in my opinion.

[@jl9088]

Speaking of clean energy, I have heard that there was an experiment where there was a group of high school kids that was able to invent sound energy, I wonder if that thing is still in progress or just simply abandoned. I hope we would be able to see them one day.

[@AaronKlapheck]

Thank you! Glad you represented the danger of nuclear energy accurately. Nuclear accidents makes headlines but is hundreds of times safer than coal and oil.

[@crashcourse]

thanks for the support! :)

[@KitagumaIgen]

The sad reason is that we overreact so so much to headline type of events and undervalue the slow-burning effects. This is more or less true for everything.

[@lars_larsen]

@@KitagumaIgen we humans are just so incredibly bad at risk assessment 😞

[@roxiewatters6375]

*"The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago and the next best time is now"*

[@Dr.Gehrig]

I'm surprised and disappointed that she didn't mention geothermal or bioenergy in the carbon clean energy mix, tidal may have been worth a mention as well. Too often forgotten but they are important and need expansion. This topic should have either been made into a bigger video or split in two. Geothermal and bioenergy needed to be discussed.

[@Dora-rr3hw]

And also green hydrogen that helps to store energy that we get from renewables like sun and wind. But maybe they made videos about it already, I'm not sure

[@chimpobox]

would you mind expanding a bit more on geothermal or bioenergy? what are those exactly and are they better for our environment?

[@mistaJ0091]

Or harnessing acoustic or thermal energy... Harnessing that energy she mentioned gets lost from the Earth in the very beginning of the video lol

[@cmuller1441]

The problem with solar and wind is also the ressources needed. To replace a single nuclear plant you need a lot of turbines hence a lot of steel, copper, concrete (foundations) etc... All those materials are not renewables too. We keep digging deeper and deeper to get them at a huge environmental cost. Also wind power is proportional to v^3 the speed of the wind cubed. (Because energy is 1/2 m v^2 and the amount of air passing on a turbine is proportional to v). So even if a wind turbine works with little wind, the production is tiny. Also when there's too much wind, it's too much power and you have to stop the turbine to avoid self destruction. In summer a solar panel can produce only 35% of its peak power on average per 24h (if you have enough storage to smoothen the production). In winter it's around 5 to 10% only because of longer nights and a sun that stays low in the sky. The only solution we have is nuclear. But even there we have to be able to exploit the U238 instead of just the 0.7% U235 otherwise we will consume that ressource in a few decades.

[@mathewbayne9163]

The "danger" of nuclear energy is really exaggerated. Nuclear technology and safety practices has improved immensely since Chernobyl. Also breeder reactors and decommissioning of nuclear weapons are and will continue to be a great source of nuclear fuel. Nuclear energy is the safest and space efficient clean energy that we need to better utilize. Thank you for pointing out the death rate per energy source at 9:42

[@Pecisk]

Also nuclear energy hasn't seen much research into less dangerous subtypes of it (small reactors, Torium salt reactors, etc), due of nuclear powerplants being used for producing materials for weapons during cold war (and stopping research after it). And yes, it was very refreshing that it was pointed out that essentially fear, not science is driving attitude towards nuclear (although it is quite dangerous if not handled correctly, but lots of fuels are).

[@MusikCassette]

the potential of Nuclear power is even more exaggerated. Space efficientcy is important for vehicles but not really that important for gridpower. to set it in perspective. just from the amount of avaiable uranium Nuclear power can at most produce 2% of the worlds Energy needs of the next 40 years. A square with edge length 100 km can provide enough solar Energy for the worlds needs.

[@HeadsFullOfEyeballs]

One big problem with nuclear power is that it isn't societal collapse-safe. Imagine if the territory conquered by ISIS had contained a dozen nuclear power plants. How much damage could they have done with all that radioactive material? Or by blowing up the reactors as they retreated? Safety practices are great as long as you actually practice them. But if things go downhill badly for our civilization we can _really_ screw over future generations' rebuilding effords by letting our decaying nuclear power plants fall into the hands of local petty warlords or Belgian ISIS or whatever. The other big problem with nuclear power is that it has always been expensive and was never competitive without large-scale government subsidies. Renewables are so much cheaper than nuclear power today that the only economical use for it is as a backup.

[@seamon9732]

*coughs in Fukushima* Powering everything with ( fission ) nuclear is a pipe dream. We'd need around 40 000 reactors. There isn't enough sites worldwide for that. We don't build fast enough, we could not maintain them and there isn't enough fuel to power them for more than a few decades. And the list goes on and on.

[@MusikCassette]

@@seamon9732 there also isn't enough Uranium for that, nor enough suitable space for the nuclear Waste.

[@HaldaneSmith]

I'm looking forward to the next episode on energy storage, and I appreciate that this series is data driven. I hope the next episode answers: 1. How much storage would an all wind and solar grid require (e.g. 65% from wind and solar and 35% from storage)? 2. How much would this storage cost with today's technology and how much in 10 years? 3. How much will this storage percentage be reduced by grid improvements being made by the infrastructure bill passed in 2022? 4. How much could the storage percentage be reduced by an ideal improvement to our grid infrastructure? 5. How much could the percentage be reduced with energy efficiency standards for appliances? 6. How much of the storage percentage could be replaced with nuclear and hydro energy? 7. You imply in this video that nuclear and hydro could provide all of the backup so why even use storage since it is very expensive?

[@SofiaMachadoChannel]

I am really sorry for being this person, but am I the only one who is getting annoyed with the slide transition sound? I don't know, maybe a background music would resolve it? Nonetheless, love your videos and happy new year! ☺️

[@wattisup8697]

Living in Africa has changed my mind on renewables forever due to the amount of environmental destruction occurring to get cobalt and lithium for batteries. It made me realize that nuclear is the way of the future.

[@storytimewithunclekumaran5004]

welcome to the party.

[@Lussimio]

This isn't why renewables are bad, this is why electric cars are bad. Since electric cars are bad, then one can come to the conclusion that all cars are bad for the environment, and that public transportation and small vehicles are the future.

[@z4zuse]

“Living in Africa”, confusing a continent witha a country again?

[@Deveonn]

Batteries for gridstorage should be iron based and doesn’t require cobalt. Lithium is found on many more places.

[@MusikCassette]

except, that it isn't

[@VinnieGer]

Man, with the way nuclear energy was being demonized, I expected way more deaths and hazards.

[@storytimewithunclekumaran5004]

its the scame lie as climate change and muh green. same money same people same agenda.. I LOVE FOSSIL FUEL .. GO FOSSIL FUEL !

[@VashdaCrash]

Yeah I think it's because nuclear is associated with nuclear weapons, which are as demonized as it gets. Though it's understandable, given recent history.

[@TreesTrees]

It's because when it happens, it is catastrophic and has the potential to be worse than predicted. It is not that is happens frequently.

[@LiquorWithJazz]

0 deaths at Three Mile Island. 1 death at Fukushima due to the reactor.

[@MeepChangeling]

@@VashdaCrash No it's not understandable. At all.

[@combactu8636]

Awesome video, thank you, I've learned a lot ! I just think the transition slides don't need a sound effect, it distracts too much for the course.

[@margaretpolard4724]

Yes, the sound effects are distracting

[@carlborgen]

I found this surprisingly informative and balanced. Well done.

[@michaelmcquay5161]

A lot of people are saying how bad mining for lithium is, but they don't take into consideration of fracking (mining for oil) and the emissions that fossil fuel gives off. You have to weigh the damage that fossil fuels have already done to the planet and are still doing. So mining for lithium did nowhere near as much damage nor will it ever. Nuclear power is good but very dangerous, risky, and can be very harmful to the environment. Sometimes a little bad can do a lot of good.

[@lizbethstringer3583]

Was waiting for a discussion of the need for better batteries to hold on to the electricity created during peak sun/wind times as well as a need for better infrastructure to transfer the electricity from areas of generation to areas of consumption, I guess I will have to watch the next episode and see what the discussion is.... This is a well needed Crash Course. Thank you.

[@soaringAnn]

Great overview, thanks! Surely more to mention, but gives a good glimpse and direction for further research

[@francoislacombe9071]

We don't need to _find_ ways to make electricity without fossil fuels, we _know_ how to do it. Availability of technology is not the problem here, cost, politics and resistance from the fossil fuel industry are.

[@lars_larsen]

Great series! I think re-foresting and re-wilding as much land as possible is probably the best carbon-capture technology we'll have available, in part because it will have a variety of other environmental benefits. That would make nuclear power the best power source because it gives the most MWh per square metre, while also being among the safest and cleanest ways to generate power.

[@brucefrykman8295]

We need to chop up a lot of forest land to make way for millions of wind turbines and tens of thousands of new high tension power lines that carry their "sometimes" power to where it is needed. On the other hand CO2 makes forests greener and healthier. Did she say that?

[@kiteparker4310]

where’s her accent from?

[@mohitbehal3127]

Scottish

[@HeadsFullOfEyeballs]

@@mohitbehal3127 Nah, she's American.

[@EvdogMusic]

4:56-5:19 As Grid Energy Storage becomes more and more advanced, this will become less and less of an issue.

[@AdmiralSP]

Honestly, Nuclear is probably the best bet for the next few decades. It's super safe, super clean (even including mining), and super super cheap. We should really go all in on nuclear untill we can get really good at other more renewal sources. At that point, producing the resources for those renewable sources would also be clean. But that's probably easier said than done, with fear and geopolitics around nuclear.

[@ilistencanada]

This episode was very informative, thank you!

[@ahronrichards9611]

Nice episode! It pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of the means by which electricity is made. And it goes to show that there isn't just one way to make electricity through renewable means. But we can never phase out completely fossil fuels. So if we try to find a balance between the two then that might just be the sweet spot.

[@Ninon__]

Slowly looks over at the can of green beans I am eating How does she know

[@ponyote]

Bit of feedback. The sound used during wipes in this video was a tiny bit distracting.

[@RhizometricReality]

One of the things I always find silly is how we have failed to find a way to extract electrons from a substance without combustion. The industry keep saying that gasoline is very energy dense. But it seems very energy inefficient every time we have to combust it. I'm sure someone with a degree in this subject will tell me why it's not possible but I think it's silly that we have failed to figure this out

[@RhizometricReality]

Another thing I've heard talked about is orbital solar power stations, beaming energy back down to earth. But I still don't understand why we aren't finding more efficient molecular reactions

[@RhizometricReality]

Why can't we genetically engineer plants that produce electricity? Why can there not be photovoltaic trees that produce excess and feed into an overall electric capacitence of a community.

[@RhizometricReality]

Maybe not so technological adults after all.

[@maxwellvandenberg2977]

Still working on degree but I'll do my best: That's kind of how generators and solar panels work. Turbines in generators can be turned with steam heated by fossil fuels, but they can also be turned by currents ofwind or water, or by steam heated by concentrated solar power or by fission or fusion. The way this works is that turning the turbine turns a magnet, and turning the magnet near coiled wire induces a current in the wire. The current flows in a loop, so any electrons that "leave" a given bit of material are quickly replaced. The areas that lack electrons are called electron holes and I've heard they are a useful concept for understanding solar panels and transistors.

[@maxwellvandenberg2977]

Also there are some nuclear reactions that release electrons directly as decay products,and this can be used to power small devices, this is called betavolteics. The reason it is not used widely is because the amount of current that can be derived from this is very small, and the isotopes required are very rare.

[@blithe8935]

This is GREAT video, but the sound effect is kinda annoying

[@SH.K_]

wow great content! thank you

[@VexMage]

I totally heard that like the Adele song, "Hello from the Internet!" 🤣

[@lorenzosalomone8635]

finally someone pointing that fossil fuels at equal production levels kills far more than nuclear. Sadly nuclear scares people more

[@AwkwardPasta004]

I love how you mention mac n cheese every episode lol

[@Itsjustblank]

What about geothermal power?

[@MusikCassette]

It is great, but it verys a lot how much you can use it dependant on the location.

[@lordhefman]

You either need very volcanically active area or you got to dig literally miles underground.

[@MrTaxiRob]

it's my understanding that, like a heat pump system, it relies on a heat differential above and below grade. If that difference in temperatures isn't big enough, it isn't as efficient. In many latitudes it would only be good for seasonal use.

[@Theres_No_PlanetB]

no mention to other fission fuels? i guess. Thanks for the series!

[@Pecisk]

Excellent, well informed episode, thank you :)

[@TCC180]

I heard that there have been some advancements in the use of nuclear fusion rather than fission, for the purposes of generating energy. I have no idea how practical it is, but it sounds fascinating. anyway, Fission is really overly demonized, and it's really too bad, since it would go a long way to solving our energy issues if we'd just get over the stigma.... I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I can't help but feel like the bad PR is at least partially caused/supported by folks who benefit from oil and fossil fuels remaining our primary energy source.

[@rossgirven5163]

The advancements in fusion have been blown up by the media (as usual). Yes there has been good progress, but we are still a fair way off yet.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

They have been promising me nuclear fusion for all of my 60 years. Time to get over it already.

[@Sanischan]

I'm excited for fusion as well. But given the stage where it's at, experts seem to think that we'll only get it off the ground proper in the second half of this century. Similarly to fission, building these facilities takes time too, and few countries are eager to commission one while the science remains this experimental. (Although about 35 countries seem to have contributed to the ITER Tokamak facility that is currently being built in France, so they're definitely still some level of interested!) Our biggest hurdle remains our deadline. I recently learned that out here in the Netherlands they're set to build two new nuclear fission plants that ought to be finished in about... ten years. That's more than I thought this government was prepared to do however, I can only hope that others are currently greenlighting new plants as well.

[@soul1d]

Modern reactors are smaller and safer, but people just imagine what the SImpsons portrayed

[@schrodingersGinger]

Sadly fusion isnt ready for commercial operation just yet and probably wont be for a while. It would be really cool, but we cannot predict when itll finally be advanced enough to contribute meaningfully to power generation

[@thomsfr]

Oops I think you forgot the bit about reducing our energy consumption as individuals and as a society (on top of decarbonizing the production) :o Too bad, you were close really: "growing appetite", "meeting people's needs"... there might be something we can do about this in our western world ?

[@skenzyme81]

Even if a Chernobyl happened every month, nuclear power wouldn't cause as many deaths as "safe" energy sources do every year.

[@MusikCassette]

That does not work out. but more importantly, Nuclear power doesn't even have the potential to provide enough energy.

[@futureneck4life]

Problem there is you blight the land for 1000 years

[@HeadsFullOfEyeballs]

I mean, we got very lucky with the wind direction during the Chernobyl disaster (and Fukushima, for that matter). So if a Chernobyl did happen every month, not only would we lose a lot of land area to exclusion zones, it would only be a matter of time before a cloud came down over a major city. Imagine the economic impact of having to abandon London for 50 years.

[@Baxtexx]

Yep, kurzgesagt had a great video about it.

[@user-rt8sh7xt1d]

But if a Chernobyl happened every month wouldn't large amounts of earth regularly become uninhabitable?

[@Deveonn]

Both solar and wind aren’t demanding space exclusively. It can be shared. Start with solar on roof and walls and wind turbine between farm land.

[@opeyemiodedere5152]

Awesome presentation!

[@MrZacchery]

Give me an electronic snowplow that can get traction in the steep icy mountains! I want something, but the only things that work are vehicles like a skidsteer or Toolcat. I would love to stop using fuel, but no electric options for us in deep in small town MT. Please list product names below! I will research any options!

[@moswaromalapane56]

It incredibly amazing how electricity got us all connected

[@toyotaprius79]

Amazing how electricity isn't often in public or community ownership, but in private ownership - hence the long delays to reduce emissions

[@davidmende3409]

3:54 not exactly a good comparison, when you factor in that the gas, also coal, powerplant - itself - sits there, yet the resources needed to fuel it are probably mined over an equally large area - as the wind turbines "farming" their own energy

[@samiullah3812]

so thankx video infom

[@matthewmann8969]

Without green house gases there is always use for plant, water, wind, and solar power yeah.

[@punkdigerati]

How large is the natural gas reservoir for that 1km² plant?

[@chrisyoung9653]

bring on fusion power

[@MusikCassette]

we have fusion power. Gravity- confinement works just fine. ^^

[@tpat90]

The green premium is I guess a US centric problem. In Europe it's the opposite effect. The price for some of the green energy is fixed to a proportion of the energy coming from fossil fuel. To give it some validity to be marketable in the first place.

[@cameronwarttig1732]

Hopefully, this gets more than 100 thousand views

[@ferblancart8669]

9:47 why so many people still fears nuclear so much and can't go beyond the 'but chernobyl' fear mentality? Another posible source as good as neuclear is geothermal, often forgotten

[@waytoobiased]

Humans are irrational. As for geothermal, that only works in certain places.

[@Pecisk]

Geothermal is definitely on par with wind and solar for locality.

[@MusikCassette]

I don't get why so many people think nuclear Energy is even an option.

[@rossgirven5163]

@@MusikCassette because compared to oil, gas and coal, nuclear is super safe.

[@rossgirven5163]

Geothermal does not hold a candle to nuclear in terms of energy density. You would need far more geothermal plants to generate the same amount of power.

[@jebavarde3170]

Guys please, please, PLEASE do a crash course series on musical theory 🙏

[@dementiasorrow]

What about geothermal why wasnt it included in this episode??

[@CitiesForTheFuture2030]

Energy efficiency not discussed. This is crucial first step to reduce demand, e.g. passive & LEED certified buildings, energy efficient manufacturing & industry etc. For example, MIT is looking into bioluminescence to replace streetlighting and many traffic intersection can be converted to traffic circles (what else can be run without electricity?)... Energy storage to reduce intermittency is not discussed (future topic?). Pumped hydro (not requiring the damming of rivers) is a popular choice. Baseload power is also now less of an issue as engineers become more skilled at incorporating renewables into the grid. Renewable energy that's not intermittent was also not discussed such as next gen geothermal, conduit hydro, turbulent hydro, clean waste to energy, energy from poop, kinetic energy, ocean & wave power. It should also be noted that offshore wind is less intermittent than on-shore wind power. Agrivoltaics allows farmers to generate a second income whilst still producing the crops we need for food security. An emerging energy storage facility are EVs, e.g. V2G (charge your EV overnight when energy demand is low & cheap and use some of it to earn money when demand for energy is high. Where there's a will, there's a way... Nuclear energy is not a toy nor a shiny new gadget. It places responsibility onto future generations for energy used today. If cities, regions & countries properly plan & democratise the energy generation (e.g. community energy) nuclear won't be necessary - it's extremely expensive, takes decades to build & decommission, is hazardous & dangerous throughout its lifecycle (many accidents & problems are not reported or are classified, esp. in countries with authoritarian govs) and requires extremely specialised skills requiring years of study etc. Other renewable energy types - such as solar - require less specialised skills and will create & sustain a lot more jobs. Making renewable energy tech recyclable was also not discussed. This should have been mandatory from the beginning, but govs have begun to catch on and put the required policies in place to ensure this occurs, and companies are beginning to see the value im recycling renewable energy tech.

[@MrTaxiRob]

It's extremely expensive, takes decades to build & decommission... those are factors that can be controlled by ending the anti-nuclear power propaganda and providing the voting public with objective education on the topic. And you're right about renewable recycling, thankfully that is actually coming along at a decent pace. The thing is, it has to be mandated just like the nickel you pay for every soda can, ordinances that require the use of recycled material in shopping bags, etc. Government can have a positive impact without always turning to subsidies. As for the rest, well, they have varying levels of efficiency, and it's a capitalist world we live in.

[@Magni87]

0:15 stock photo for heating is a water radiator.

[@UrvineSpiegel]

All that I gathered from this video. We're all still in the Victorian age

[@Seeker7172]

Pretty much, even fission boils down to turning a turbine with steam which turns a rod in a coil to generate electro-magnetic energy. There is a nuclear fusion tech being developed in America which skips the turbine step and generates magnetism out of the gate, which is pretty interesting though.

[@davidcowan1583]

They should talk about fusion energy which requires no radioactive waste.

[@Sophia-wx6ry]

literally eating pizza as my midnight snack watching this right now

[@rocknrollanp]

So many people don’t understand lifecycle emissions analysis. Mining fossil fuels does more damage to the environment when compared to mining materials for batteries. People need to look further than they are when they say “lithium and cobalt mining are worse” because it’s not accurate.

[@gergsmail01]

Would it make sense to create more power storage inside and/or nearby the homes and businesses that are using the electricity? My thought being that having more locations to tap into power, we could stabilize the rate of demand... idk, thoughts?

[@MusikCassette]

The big hurdle are not really the daily , but the seasonal fluctuations. That is why we need storage, that is really cheap per TWh.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

None of the dozens of available energy storage technologies are presently practical for grid scale storage. Without storage, wind and solar will be next to useless.

[@MrTaxiRob]

Lithium is going to be a problem as more people adopt both EVs and home energy storage devices. The lion's share of it is located under the Pampas region of South America, basically the Great Plains of Argentina. If they mine it anything like the way they mine brown coal in Germany, that whole continent is pretty much doomed. And they probably will, because capitalism.

[@Sanischan]

From what I gather, the problem isn't so much getting the power from A to B, it's that we're short on these batteries in the first place. Installing giant Lithium-batteries everywhere isn't an option unfortunately. But building alternatives is oftentimes still expensive and takes a lot of engineering. A new Dutch windpark in the North Sea for example has begun installing large water-balloons on the sea floor that can be filled by excess power generation, and deflated to generate extra power when the wind is low. We could opt to perhaps develop similar structures with water towers on land, but I don't actually know how viable this solution is considered to be.

[@jnut1246]

Some things that I'd like to mention that didn't seem to be in the video are that, while not necessarily carbon emissions, we still need to find a way to make solar panels in a way that they don't release nearly as many toxins into the environment when they are thrown away/recycled. In addition, with nuclear energy, while there aren't many deaths related to nuclear accidents comparatively, we still don't have a good way of getting rid of nuclear waste.

[@kimlibera663]

Gee I guess she didn't mention that-again where do they get landfilled. I will tell you-Ghana & Senegal. Next it is too bad that the US will not actually do the manufacture of such panels or turbines so any of the jobs will be the snakeoil salesman & the installer. But nothing for engineers.

[@nickwest1305]

You can reprocess and breed the nuclear waste and get the other 95% of the energy out of it and the waste is gone in 100 years

[@Paulthored]

Are Thorium nuclear reactors options? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they still powering the Voyager Spacecraft? ..... Costs... sure. But aren't the returns of efficiency still low?

[@ashVGF]

Fantastic!

[@tsuntsunsweetie]

Thank you!

[@mefrosty5658]

at 0:49 there should be a comma in the top left paragraph, after "exists"

[@thefreshest2379]

I'd enjoy a CrashCourse about Quantum Mechanics

[@SnakeAndTurtleQigong]

Thanks so much!

[@dhairyathacker3003]

insightful

[@gelodude07]

The world needs Doc Ock to perfect his 'power of the sun in the palm of hand'.

[@Marco_Onyxheart]

Nevermind carbon emissions, fossil fuels are a bigger nuclear disaster than the occasional nuclear power plant blowing up.

[@Student-gi4lb]

I would do anything too to support the recleansing of the Earth.

[@toyotaprius79]

You have to address the market first: like why has renewables been delayed and misinformed for decades for the protection of existing markets?

[@tashi7160]

She didnt even mention battery, which is the last piece of the puzzle.

[@Videoswithsoarin]

as long as gasoline for vehicles is never banned or out of production ill be happy

[@user-gl3ji7yi2n]

👍👍THE VIDEO IS GOOD

[@emmanuelfinzi9066]

Well done for the demonstration! we must now explain how to stop and replace the 12,000 coal-fired power stations that operate 24 hours a day/365 days all over the world... good luck 😅Bravo pour la démonstration ! il faut maintenant expliquer comment arrêter et remplacer les 12.000 centrales aux charbons qui fonctionnent 24h/365 partout sur terre... bon courage 😅

[@BigSlickNuts2]

We're not ready yet.....!!!!!!!!

[@MusikCassette]

What do you mean by that?

[@nathanielhellerstein5871]

Nuclear terror is not by accident. The superpowers invested trillions into making nukes terrifying.

[@trevinbeattie4888]

I don’t think the water bucket is a good analogy for electricity supply and demand before we have widespread implementation of energy storage. As things currently stand, there is no storage buffer - practically all electricity used comes directly from generation. Since the amount of energy going through the whole grid is so huge, adding or removing individual devices to the demand isn’t going to be very noticable; but generators do need to make constant adjustments throughout the day for aggregate demand in real-time.

[@mpaul4584]

What happens to wind and solar hardware at end of life? How much co2 is too much and how much is too little?

[@johndaisley6168]

The bucket analogy at 4:00 is a bit misleading. The electricity supply and demand need to be nearly equal at all times. There isn't some massive buffer like a bucket that we can take from if the supply suddenly stops.

[@brucefrykman8295]

The elite have solved this problem, when the wind stops and the sun isn't shining, your power shut off but theirs keeps on going - smart meters make sure the lights stay on for the elite as they turn your power off remotely to "save the grid" for the elite.

[@rlak1062]

From Bangladesh 🇧🇩

[@RonaiHenrik]

I'd have loved if this video at least mentioned the possibility of fusion reactors.

[@Kalessin89]

Fusion is still very far out and not relevant to keep climate change under 2C and reach net zero in 2050, gen 4 fission (breeder reactors which have already been in commercial operation like Superphénix) is much more relevant.

[@MeleeTiger]

No mention of geothermal power?

[@dww6]

Could a smart person direct me towards some reading on why albedo from solar panels and conservation of energy don't cause a warming effect?

[@TheYodaman22]

Just waiting on fusion, nearly there

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

I have been waiting over 60 years. Still no where close.

[@mostafaashraf5619]

Hello How can i study abroad in a foreign university? How can i have a student's loan to pay the expensive university fees ? How can have the material and study it with myself without getting a certificate?

[@Rj-im2mu]

Love how carbon is pronounced

[@MrTaxiRob]

she's obvs Canadian

[@VinnieGer]

Oh finally!!!

[@GustavoSilva-ny8jc]

Impressive audio

[@blackmesa232323]

Nuclear expansion with renewable supply for peak hours.

[@MusikCassette]

Nuclear power can not be rammt up and down.

[@richiereynaga5091]

How about Nuclear Fusion?

[@Pecisk]

If you mean sun type fusion, then it is still at least 10 - 20 years away. We are making progress, but it is not linear and not very fast, and requires lots of support from material sciences.

[@Lussimio]

When the tech is ready for mass market, yes absolutely.

[@blackmesa232323]

Not scalable with current materials in a reasonable time-frame

[@mattyedginton4553]

It isn't commercially viable yet and usually in experimental fusion reactors can't produce more energy than they consume, but governments and people are investing in researching fusion.

[@MusikCassette]

@@mattyedginton4553 Nuclear fusion via gravitational confinement is commercially viable ^^

[@iraqieditor6884]

Great

[@svenskaskene199]

Any serious discussion of sustainable green power starts and ends with nuclear.

[@jnzkngs]

If we could get it through people's heads that using biofuels made from the very crops that farmers raise is a much better option for powering mobile agricultural equipment than trying to electrify the machines that can't be hard wired into a green powered grid, there would be significantly less objection to it. farms use machines that cost a half to a full million dollars for maybe two months out of the year, and those two months they are often being run around the clock with no opportunity for lengthy charging times. It would also mean updating the grid in rural areas for the massive increase in demand for electricity for just two months of the year. So first work on acceptance of the biofuels that we are already making, then work on getting the grid improved. AFTER that and after battery and charging technology has massively improved to levels that don't seem possible right now, then we can talk about electrifying tractors and harvesters.

[@lordhefman]

It's not can we do it but can we afford to do it. Solar, wind, hydro and geothermal all have logistical barriers that would make that very very difficult. Nuclear could do it, France is already at 80% nuclear powered.

[@TheDaReel]

What about tidal ??

[@nyannyan]

Numbers??? What are quantitative projected capacities, requirements, and efficiencies? That's what I was hoping to hear, and without those it's just handwaving. Can we make ENOUGH electricity without fossil fuels?

[@TheResidentPsycho]

Wow I've never been this early! And this is a really great series!

[@JitendraSingh-wh2sf]

Please make a mathematics crash course

[@Praisethesunson]

Thanks to the haber Bosch process we can't make food without fossil fuels.

[@aredditor4272]

And many polymers. Most assume the precursor chemicals for plastics come from petroleum, but as you alluded to, natural gas may be a more important feedstock for modern conveniences than petroleum.

[@tim290280]

That's not true. There are plenty of ways to grow food and plenty of fertiliser options. Look up the new ammonia generation options.

[@ivanrocha1843]

26 % of share is for electricity supply. Even if we decarbonice this 26% percent in 2050, we still have a 74% long way on the Fossil Fuel reliyng. So, for this decade, it wont be cheap and it will take more than a decade!