Energy Stats: Then and Now, Here and There

[@meowmix271]

Can we all just take a second and appreciate how amazing it is that these fine folks make such high quality and understandable videos on these interesting topics? Big Props to both the Professor and the production team!

[@waynec369]

Hear here!

[@JSaundersAndy]

I love his Videos!

[@gabrielpalacios9023]

truly amazing. i wish more people watched them.

[@lewisdoherty7621]

​@@gabrielpalacios9023 These are great videos. Often it isn't how many viewers/listeners there are, but who they are. These type videos attract quality viewers/listeners, but not a quantity of viewers/listeners. Unfortunately, there are all of these Greta Thunbergs out there who just think they know the answer, but can't even figure out the right questions or how anything really works.

[@1512TV]

Agree

[@dks13827]

Need more nuclear plants, they are good.

[@cavaronev4869]

Meh - expensive, not insureable by a company (the risk is with the state/the people), needs super high safety standards and skilled staff without room for human error. I take solar, wind and energy storage any time over this. South Australia is benefitting greatly from it. But I would consider the new kind of nuclear plants, which work with the nuclear waste we already have and reduce it...

[@danclassic7065]

@@cavaronev4869 Isn't South Australia mostly outback desert? Of course solar energy works well there. But the U.S. has a much more varied climate. Look at 4:24 - 4:45, and 5:50 - 6:15. This is an expert in the field telling you renewables aren't going to cut it in the U.S. And if we want to get serious about lowering CO2 emissions, there really aren't other options.

[@cavaronev4869]

@@danclassic7065 You would be right if solar energy was at the end of it's development stage, but it is still improving (as is storage). If ~20% efficiency is working in Australia now, 30% or 40% efficiency will do the trick almost anywhere. Maybe not in countries like Norway and Iceland, where it's very cold and dark for several months in winter... but wait, both are already at 99% renewables! Seems wind, water and geothermal can do the trick too.

[@danclassic7065]

@@cavaronev4869 Iceland and Norway both have geography that isn't present in a continent spanning nation like the U.S. They have unique geological features that make geothermal power much cheaper to produce, and a huge amount of coastline for wind farms. So then what about a place like my Central PA? Lower than average sunshine, stable geologically, and the only decent wind is on the mountaintops, not really enough for large wind farms. As for those efficiencies, again, that's for S. Australia. That's 20% of all solar radiation hitting the device. 20% or even 40% of sunlight on my rooftop in State College is a a lot less than the same fraction in the Outback.

[@danclassic7065]

@@cavaronev4869 I'm not against renewable energy at all, we absolutely should deploy it where/how it is sensible. But we also need to be realistic about how much power it can provide.

[@opensourceguy730]

Thank you for your dispassionate, balanced, and highly informative videos. Personally, I think it’s shameful that we aren’t using more nuclear power. France gets 80% of its power from nuclear.

[@cavaronev4869]

It does, and the state owned energy company EDF is deep in depth. Why is that? All but 3 of the french nuclear reactors are older than 20 years. I heared on this channel that nuclear power is especially lucrative over the long term.

[@turningpoint4238]

Fission is just expensive.

[@bonob0123]

agree completely

[@bonob0123]

@@cavaronev4869 watch his video on economics of a nuclear fission reactor. It would be crazy not to run a reactor for longer than 20 years. you're barely paying off the initial capital costs at that point. seems like what France doing makes perfect sense actually.

[@SVSky]

@@cavaronev4869 It is. It bought France political independence for 50 years. That's priceless.

[@differenttan7366]

I was braced for something with a political agenda, I was so pleased this turned out to be a video that just stuck to the facts rather than opinions or those videos where the facts are edited to support a predetermined conclusion.

[@robertmcquarrie452]

I started seeing other energy presentations from other sources on my recommended, and they were filled with politics and “climate change” to try and get more investment. Glad to see this is something that is purely informative.

[@lightdark00]

Ahhhhh, that sweet sweet sound of the marker gliding on the glass is soothing now.

[@jasonalexander2952]

I'd love to see a total cost video per quad on each source. Cost including subsidies and total environmental cost including manufacturing and mining.

[@gabrielpalacios9023]

true! even more interesting: deaths per TWh...

[@FreedomIsNotGoingToBeFree]

There is no such number really. Those would be just made up PR numbers.

[@uploadJ]

@@FreedomIsNotGoingToBeFree re: "There is no such number really. Those would be just made up PR numbers." In the developed countries, those numbers (subsidies) appear in government 'budget' (and legislative bill) docs ... not-so-much in other countries ...

[@meh23p]

You’d have to factor in all the historical subsidies given to fossils and nuclear for that to make sense. Also, the environmental cost of solar (PV and thermal) and onshore wind is still tiny compared to fossils. You have an upfront production cost and thereafter some land use (which can be diminished for both wind and solar PV by integrating them into other land uses). Doesn’t even compare to gigatons of carbon every year. I do think developing 4th Generation nuclear is a good idea, though.

[@uploadJ]

@@meh23p re: "all the historical subsidies given to fossils " Like, uh, what? Can you give us a "program" or a congressional 'Act' or resolution name? I think you're falling back to that 'argument' that EVERYTHING gets a subsidy, which is misleading FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION.

[@GracianBCQ]

Thank you, Professor Ruzic and the production team!

[@FUnzzies1]

It's so cool to see University of Illinois making these videos. Illinois represent!

[@nannite]

yeah but do you have a geothermal power plant? norcal!

[@rogeronslow1498]

A no- nonsense video well delivered and to the point. Excellent. Thank you.

[@HarvardBob]

Wow, one of the clearest most fascinating presentations of energy production and consumption. Had me on the edge of my seat. All I need now is some popcorn.

[@grandgao3984]

Very fine lecture with clarity and insights, arguably better than many paid subscriptions! Carry on Energy Prof!

[@laserflexr6321]

Excellent presentation!. I think everyone should see this one.

[@sasquatchycowboy5585]

Thank you and your team so much for these videos.

[@PointyTailofSatan]

In Ontario, Canada, we are something like 60% nuclear, 25% hydroelectric, and 0% coal. Except for cars, air pollution is almost non-existent here.

[@bonob0123]

that's beautiful

[@kurtjohansson1265]

Nuclear energy is the way off of oil,

[@Tore_Lund]

@@kurtjohansson1265 Noticed the same thing in Paris. With their nuclear power, a city teeming with cars, the air was much cleaner.

[@zapfanzapfan]

That is only the electricity part though, not total energy.

[@mr.schmee]

Please keep doing what you’re doing! Love these videos!

[@willyjimmy8881]

Iv'e learned so much fron your videos. I really appreciate the spin free presentation of facts and the incredibly simple way you discuss these complex topics.

[@pianoman7753]

I subscribed because everyone else is right- these are excellent quality videos on interesting and pertinent topics, presented in such an approachable manner, Im actually finding myself seeking out more information about them. You do your job very well, sir.

[@JackClayton123]

The presentation is good, the information is interesting. I don’t understand why the thumbs down ratings....

[@duradim1]

Because the Left hates reality.

[@kurtjohansson1265]

When you tell them nuclear is a good thing they do get defensive....

[@zoltan1953]

I absolutely love these videos. It's refreshing to see real science about energy explained in an understandable manner on the internet. I've learned a lot from these videos. Please keep them coming. And keep us updated on how that fusion technology is coming! I'm pretty excited about the future of that stuff!

[@miranda9691]

This Man deserve's my tuition!

[@enablequery]

Your videos are so informative and interesting to watch. You are very good at consolidating large concepts and presenting them in a manner that is easily comprehended. Thank you very much for your contributions. Greetings from a guy on a train on his way to work in Sweden.

[@ApertureSCAEC2]

A fresh video with a fresh marker. 😀

[@EFChartley]

Excellent video and excellently presented 🇺🇸

[@tropolite]

I'm really appreciating these lessons you are uploading about energy. The presentations are great and well organized and presented. I wonder if I can ask if you can do a couple topics in the near future; - Presentations - behind the scenes. A look at how your setup operates with your screen and your slides that you present - Comparison of Nuclear vs renewables. A look at the numbers of RoI, energy density, running costs, life expectancy, end of life decommissioning, etc. I did find your "There's Always a Cost" video, which was helpful, but if can done for the major energy sources it would be very helpful.

[@Songfugel]

2 significant improvement suggestions to this video 1) also show energy usage by capita next to those numbers, this is very relevant information 2) also show a pie-chart of each county's energy production split then and before. With these changes, this video would skyrocket in informative value for the uneducated

[@nikiss8]

yes, like civil and business. say would be interesting to compare industrial and civil consumption in china and us. also shipping from china to us, who carries the burden?

[@TheOwenMajor]

Energy use per capita isn't particularly useful. Here in Canada, for example, our per capita usage is very high, not because we are particularly wasteful but because we have to heat our houses at -40. Long term nationwide usage is more relevant to the discussion.

[@Songfugel]

@@TheOwenMajor You don't seem to understand the matter at hand at all, so I won't bother trying to explain it to you

[@TheOwenMajor]

@@Songfugel You really do come off as a massive ass whole.

[@Songfugel]

@@TheOwenMajor Maybe, still beats wasting anymore of my time on you

[@edpiv2233]

Could you please do an economic cost of energy by type? Ex. Total of a coal plant plus fuel cost / BTUs produced over its lifetime?

[@illinoisenergyprof6878]

Check out “economics of nuclear power”. Not everything you want but closer

[@Tim_Small]

The term for what I think you're looking for is "Levelized Cost of Energy" (LCoE). One of the most prominent LCoE assessments is done by the financial company "Lazard", and is updated annually (usually in November I think). It's freely available online.

[@cavaronev4869]

4:38 I say opinion! Because there is no physical reason why it should not be possible. We need a lot of energy storage though (electric, heat, kinetic - maybe power-to-gas).

[@Flight522]

Cavaron EV Tesla is here to stay

[@sednabold859]

Maybe but all these additional storage systems make it less economically competitive especially with redundancy and seasonal variation compared to electricity on demand/ base loading plants

[@Kanner111]

Constantly impressed with this guy's ability to write in mid-air. Astonishing!

[@timc7035]

hehe the secret is he writes normally, but they mirror the video so the writing is reversed.

[@kennethhicks2113]

Luv facts. Ty and Happy New Year.

[@listerdave1240]

Great content and production quality (I do miss the squeaky markers though :-) A little suggestion - if you put the monitor on the other side then when pointing at the projected (superimposed actually) graphs and figures then it would appear as if you were looking directly at the image.

[@stephenverchinski409]

What are the projections for frack oil wells yet to be installed and depletion rates over time? I mean our frontier zones are limited. Also so is the 10 million gallons of water plus used per frack.

[@BravoCharleses]

The gray jacket looks good on you! Thank you for these videos. They really improve my understanding of these subjects.

[@ZIlberbot]

thanks for such organized analysis! Some remarks from me: - gas got more popular in the US because of many shale gas extractions which appeared only during such timeline used during such analysis - perhaps India has so relatively small energy consumption (compared to China) due to the country is in warm climate (not sure which part of the produced total energy is dedicated to heating and related service)

[@jimmurphy6095]

The addition of the global population in each column would have been helpful in figuring out per person usage. Excellent series, BTW. Please don't stop making them!

[@luckyluke013]

I remember taking NPRE101 (which he sadly doesn't teach anymore) a couple years ago while I was still in school. I only really took it to satisfy some geneds. He was one of the best professors I had, the most fun I'd ever had listening to in lecture (though I didn't like the assignments!). Really helped me understand so much more about the world of energy, even though it wasn't my major. Hope you teach the class again some day! The lecture where you swam in Bonecreek was the best :)

[@nwmancuso]

Can you increase the volume gain on these videos? My mobile is turned up to max and it's still not loud enough. Other than that I really appreciate this series.

[@redpill647]

Professor Ruzic, KZbin question: What is your opinion on the Molten Salt cooled Nuclear Reactor, Is it an option and could it increase safety margins ? Thank you.

[@_datapoint]

Good stuff as usual. Could you turn up the volume. All of the other shows I watch much louder.

[@beeilve]

Professor Ruzic states that renewables cannot replace fossil fuels (4:45). Is then it accurate to claim that the only path forward for global society is Nuclear Energy? All the online debate seems to be people talking past each other, one side claiming solar can power the future and the other claiming it can't.

[@cleitonfelipe2092]

Yes, only nuclear fusion, anything else is waste of time and money developing useless sources like wind and solar

[@kodiak2fitty]

@@cleitonfelipe2092 Nuclear fission could sustain us for millenia.

[@cleitonfelipe2092]

@@kodiak2fitty but is not as clean and powerful as fusion

[@kodiak2fitty]

@@cleitonfelipe2092 you do realize fusion still doesn't work after 70 years of "it's only 10 to 20 years away"? A modern breeder reactor or liquid thorium fission reactor would burn up most of it's waste. Both fusion and fission reactors will leave behind radioactive stuff because both are spewing neutrons everywhere. That will make anything nearby, like the vessel and piping, radioactive.

[@zolikoff]

@@cleitonfelipe2092 It's still far cleaner than anything else. Considering we have a proven track record for fission and none yet for fusion, why would you wait until fusion is a thing, however much it will take? When you can switch to fission now and then work fusion out, you'd have all the time in the world while you don't further cause climate change and kill people from air pollution.

[@bonob0123]

Happy New Year! can you revisit your global warming lecture this year? I thought the old one was somewhat superficial and left some things open to misinterpretation (out of character for the rest if this channel). maybe you can really clarify a well formed position in an updated way now. appreciate the nice clear content otherwise. Thanks.

[@BentHestad]

Excellent! Thanks, professor!

[@serg3y]

5:56 I hope you are wrong. I think there is a huge growth potential simply through cheaper wind and solar even without cheaper storage (note you don't have use all you produce during peak supply, also variable pricing will allow demand to adapt to supply). If both renewables and storage get cheaper (which they are and fast) then the change in renewables can be huge. Add also cheaper chemical long term storage (weeks and months) and or improved global energy grid to absorb national fluctuations and sky is the limit!

[@tommypetraglia4688]

Last time I was this early Gore had the lead in Florida

[@SeanTerisu]

SCOTUS: Not so fast

[@hazcat640]

Never mind the actual count and 3 independent recounts that all had him losing, blame it on SCOTUS.

[@kurtjohansson1265]

Guys, let it go lol

[@RS-vu3df]

Love your videos, but allow me to make a small correction the generic formula for coal is C(x). For oil the formula is CH(x).

[@Psodji]

Thank you for this video. Could you please talk about energy subsidies in a future video? It would be interesting to compare each energy source's production by the amount of taxpayer funding they receive, along with the growth of those energy sources and subsidies over the years.

[@frankhage1734]

I'd like to see a lecture on the energy costs of transportation systems. Mazda says diesels are "cleaner/greener" than electric vehicles. Humvee claims it's more energy efficient than a Prius when you take longevity and resource extraction and manufacturing into account. I'm hoping Energy Prof can shed some light on this complex topic.

[@info781]

Great video. Don't underestimate solar, it can not do everything but it is really taking off, lets check in five years. Also if we can develop large commercial air conditioners that can store energy during the solar window (11 am - 5 pm) and just use the fan at night, that will help. Electric cars give us maximum flexibility on energy use and are more efficient than gas.

[@appelpatrick4527]

this videos are epic! i‘m glued to the screen, even moore due the covid time. in switzerland were i live, we sadly wave goodbye for future nuclear power plants.and those who are still in service ( 4 of them) give us 35 % electric power. do the math when 2040 all are shut down.. anyway, thank you so much energy prof and your team.

[@hamentaschen]

Thank you!!

[@AtlasReburdened]

Volume seems a bit low on this one.

[@gregs_garage]

very good thanks. Incredible that the common conception on the street is that fossil fuel use is declining and is yesterday's energy to be displaced by solar and wind. People actually take that as a "given"

[@PV-bc3no]

Thank you for this interesting analysis. The one thing I (as an European citizen) I do not agree on is that we perform great because our graph is rather flat. This is a misconception as we do NOT produce as much stuff as in earlier decades, but rather let China, ... produce lots of our stuff. This explains a big part of the rising energy consumption in those countries (which actually relates to our wealth > thus should add up in our numbers).

[@andrewnippert3252]

Great videos. Getting slightly outdated, which is understandable. As of 2022, solar was already up to 3.5% and wind 10%, and the adoption of solar in particular is accelerating as it becomes ever cheaper.

[@justanumber427]

Please have older years on left and more recent years on right like standard timelines. Great video as always!!

[@Phil-D83]

Can you do a video on the integral fast reactor?

[@srmj71]

This is the best channel regarding science on KZbin. Thank you for your efforts!

[@KiloGramNo1]

Incredible

[@blipco5]

What we need is conservation. It's not that dirty of a word. Winter has set in where I live. I have my thermostat turned down a bit. My gas bill is cheaper. I'm happy.

[@ThomasHaberkorn]

Love your videos!

[@NeutronSplitter]

How much energy was saved by switching to non-squeak markers?

[@t3hSurge]

New EnergyProf content, thank you!

[@grzegorzm1277]

Isn't it that consumption in the US is flat just because much of the industry was moved to China?

[@matthiasmayer7328]

Maybe of interest, though slightly outdated: www.carbontrust.com/media/38075/ctc795-international-carbon-flows-global-flows.pdf

[@sednabold859]

He mentions this, still the GDP continued to grow as the economy transitioned

[@slavkochepasov8134]

Interesting review! Can a flat energy consumption be explained by flat level of energy hungry manufacturing? To do "more" US may import heavy manufacturing components thus needs less energy.

[@amyself6678]

Steel was 6 percent of US energy now 2. So China subsidizing to get most steel work helps.

[@icthulu]

Nice information. What's the current state of space based energy development?

[@stephenverchinski409]

Do you have the stats for state by state? Also how much is exported?

[@jeremymettler2844]

State by state information is a bit harder to find. More videos in the future may discuss exports and the like, though the amount pf energy export for the U.S. is typically fairly low.

[@info781]

Here is a good article on energy use from WP www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/?.880d55c1e385

[@lawtonsegler1923]

I’d love to see a video, or series of videos, on real solutions. How to provide the energy required to provide a good standard of living for all people. What will it take? What are the options? You seem to be a trustworthy source of information...

[@crimsonhalo13]

I stole the professor's squeaky markers. Arrrr, me hearties!

[@grekiki]

Why is coal modeled as (CH)_x instead of simply as carbon?

[@stuarthirsch]

Because coal is a very complex hydrocarbon that would take the entire screen to show.

[@andrewapsley6515]

Because the energy derived from fossil fuels (which includes coal) is determined by the amount of hydrogen in them - it is the hydrogen gas burning which is useful. The carbon gets oxidized, turning into CO and CO2, plus other things. The point is that coal has 1 carbon atom per hydrogen atom, whereas natural gas, which is mostly methane (CH4) has 0.25 carbon atoms per hydrogen atom. Thus the methane is "cleaner". I'm not sure how accurate that line of thinking really is, given that methane itself is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and lots of it must escape during the fracking. But I'm not sure whether I really care about greenhouse gases either. There's a lot to consider there, but I'd rather focus on the fact that burning coal pollutes the air, in a way that causes respiratory illness. In that respect natural gas is a cleaner fuel. I reckon that's what really matters in the comparison.

[@stuarthirsch]

@@andrewapsley6515 When we look at total environmental damage for generating electricity nuclear power offers the cleanest option in most cases, especially from thorium. I'm sure fusion power will be a reality within the next 50 years and become the dominant electric power energy source by the end of the century.

[@HeyU308]

Thank you for pointing out we can not replace oil, gas, coal and nuclear with intermittent energy. It’s not a problem to solved with technology, but understanding energy density and baseload power. Mathematically it is impossible to move to less dense energy sources and solve it with volume, you can try but it is madness. California a case of moving to intermittent energy, with a shell game to buy energy oil, gas, coal and nuclear from surrounding states. When you buy from other states it has to travel the grid and significant energy is lost as it travels. Balancing a grid is not a shell game you will win.

[@SavageTactical]

Professor in your opinion what energy source or sources should the country concentrate on and why?

[@paulfun8720]

Why would Canada use so much more power per capita than the USA? 12:10 mark shows Canada 14.7 quads compared to 99.2 quads for the USA. The USA has a population 10 times that of Canada so I would expect a Canadian usage of 9.2 yet we have 14.7. What could be the reason for that?

[@do_regan]

This video needs 350 million views. There's too much political conjecture (from both sides) that needs to be reinterpreted and made accordant with this essential info.

[@rajanrangarajan8401]

4:06 why isn't Hydroelectric classified as "renewable"?

[@TheOwenMajor]

Hydro is one of the earliest forms of electricity production and has been almost fully developed at this point. Including it in the definition for renewable in this context is not relevant because the term has modern policy meaning in solar and wind. Solar and Wind are the big policy decisions at play, not hydro.

[@GoldSrc_]

Dams don't last forever, there are plenty of abandoned hydro plants in the world. With the Sun, while it will not last forever, 4 billion years should be enough. As for wind, as long as the Sun is there, we will still have wind.

[@rajanrangarajan8401]

@@TheOwenMajor So it is politics and not science. right? Got it. and btw the term Renewable is alos a misnormers correct. the correct word is "Replishables". the photon hitting the solar cell is never "renewed" nor the momentem of the air molecule hitting the blades of the wind mill.

[@rajanrangarajan8401]

@@GoldSrc_ if you are talking about the "instrument of energy conversion" then neither do solar cells nor windmills last forever. if you are talking about the source of energy just like wind or sunlight there will be rain and the river will flow forever. In fact wind and rain are the same manifestation of solar

[@rajanrangarajan8401]

@@GoldSrc_ Again you are (intentionally) confusing between instrument, medium and source of energy. Dam is the instrument for energy, just like the wind mill and the solar panel. All do NOT last forever. Wind (which is a medium) is same as water/rain/photon. In all the cases sun is the source of the energy.

[@grigorigahan]

I've watched way too many of these videos.. Its a testament to how good this content is that somehow a series of topics I've either had zero interest in or never had it even occur to me to consider I've been so engrossed with.

[@VladimirGluten47]

Same here, it's really great to find interest in topics like this all thanks to the great presentation skills on show.

[@SciFiMind]

Would be interested in a video of how new efficient technologies will/are affecting these trends. When the US was going through this growth spurt it was done with incandescent lights, inefficient electric motors, computers that required refrigeration, and poorer or no insulation....etc. Would love to see if these improved technological starting points are showing up in the data as other countries start ramping up.

[@chrisb4009]

The UK would beg to differ on if you can replace hydrocarbons with renewables. We’re currently are about 47% electric from renewables. We’re also working on storage rapidly.

[@sailbiker1]

Please, pretty please, and quadruple pretty please do a presentation on the impact of electric vehicles on the U.S. electrical grid, with analysis of renewables and how they will or will not cover the increase of demand on the grid. Folks need enlightenment on this issue, and I foresee trouble ahead, caused by magical thinking..... am i wrong? Love your vids, keep up the good work!

[@2meters2]

If EVs are going to take off (and it sure looks like they will), we will start to see a reduction in "oil" quads and there will be an increase in "electricity" quads. However, while EVs are near 100% efficient with electricity, ICE vehicles are only about 20-25% efficient with oil. So the "oil" quads are not the same as the "electricity" quads generated by renewables Electricity is much more "valuable" energy than oil or coal or natural gas. (and this crucial difference between the various energy sources is something that is missing from this video). Oil use is huge in the US, and it may seem that the electric grid would go down if we all move to EVs. But because of the efficiency difference, it's not going to be so bad. Look at this (overall US energy use) graph : flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/energy/energy_archive/energy_flow_2011/LLNLUSEnergy2011.png Notice that 25 quads of "oil" energy go into the transportation sector, but only 6.76 quads are used for actually moving vehicles. That's the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) in-efficiency right there. If we would move to EVs, then we only need to provide that 6.76 quads (plus some charging losses etc) in the form of electricity, which is about a 60% increase of the 12 quads that the US grid is currently providing. So, yes, if we move the entire US transportation sector to Electric Vehicles, we will save 25 quads of "oil" energy, and it will cause a 60% increase in load on the US grid. That's manageable. We just need some semi-smart grid where we don't charge all electric vehicles at the same time.

[@TheOwenMajor]

Currently, not an issue, don't see it being an issue for the foreseeable future. I don't see the ability for EV's to be more than a rich people's toy even with expanding supply networks(excluding potential small city vehicles). If anything more load during the night(charging) will help balence demand out a little.

[@Ryan-lk4pu]

@@2meters2 not sure where you live but in Europe, our (modern) cars are more efficient than 20-25% I believe. We have really small, high torque turbo engines. Not an expert tho! And are EV's really anywhere near 100% efficient taking into account rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, battery degradation, moving parts (albeit less than in ICE) but things like differentials etc?

[@carljaekle]

@@Ryan-lk4pu ICE are about 33% efficient. Electric motors are 90% efficient, so whatever other forces are at play, aerodynamic drag, differentials etc. EV's will always be way more efficient. Yes we will need to produce more power, buy electric energy can be produced from zero CO2 sources, and low CO2 sources. Natural gas produces way less CO2 than coal.

[@carljaekle]

Two things, electric motors are 90% efficient, ICE are 33%. Second, you can create electrical energy from many sources, nuclear, natural gas, renewables, all produce far less CO2, than an ICE burning gasoline. Yes widespread adoption of EV's will require more power, but the power can be made in a less CO2 intensive manner, and be used more efficiently by an EV.

[@saultcrystals]

EnergyProf is leaving out key info and context for this video. Firstly, he uses "primary energy", probably from the 2018 BP Energy Review. The problem with primary energy figures is that they incorporate the total energy WITHIN the fuel, not the USABLE energy we get from the fuel. This skews the numbers quite a bit, especially for fossil fuels. For example, coal amounted to 13 quads of energy consumption in 2018, but since coal power plants are only around 33% efficient, the actual usable energy in the form of electricity delivered from this coal was maybe 4.4 quads. Natural gas plants fare a little bit better since they can be 50% efficient. Usable energy from natgas was then 15.1 quads. I think BP applies this correction for nuclear power, so the number is correct in this video. The error comes when comparing primary energy production of different fuels and renewable energy. Since solar and wind make usable electricity directly and their output is reported as such, you need to remove all the waste energy from coal and natgas plants to make a real comparison. Otherwise, the numbers for renewable energy look artificially small. This error is very apparent when you look at energy from oil consumption. Even a generous interpretation of the efficiency of our cars and trucks shows they are 20% efficient at most in getting power to the wheels. So in effect, we really only need 7.2 quads of useable energy to satisfy our personal transport needs. So when things are put into proper context on an apples to apples basis, renewables produce twice as much of the energy pie as these numbers would tell us. Solar is undoubtedly higher because a lot of its production is consumed on-site (as in a rooftop array) and it is nearly impossible to aggregate all these small, distributed generators. Secondly, EnergyProf derides renewable energy depending on "government programs". This is a silly point to make. Fracking was developed through decades of government-funded R&D. The Manhattan Project and later "Atoms for Peace" programs gave us nuclear power. Nuclear power is still dependent on free liability insurance from the government, the ability to offload the responsibility for long-term waste disposal onto the government, the ability to charge utility customers for nuke plants under construction, the ability to offload bad debt and bankruptcy costs onto utility customers when nuke plants become too expensive to build or are abandoned in mid-construction (See WPPSS for an example)...the list goes on and on. Recently, a string of old, supposedly paid-off nuclear plants in several U.S. states have required massive bailouts to keep operating. The paltry tax breaks renewables have received are dwarfed by the length of time and magnitude of government support going towards fossil fuels and nuclear power. Finally, EnergyProf claims that wind and solar installations will slow dramatically in the future because "the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine all the time". Numerous studies from Clack, Jacobson and other energy system modelers disagree on a lot of things, but what they do agree on is that getting to 80% renewable energy is very achievable and economic, even with current technology. Maybe EnergyProf's preferred solution of nuclear power will be able to stick around and provide much of the other 20% while we figure out how to expand renewables even more. But this is a debate for energy modelers in the 2040's or thereabouts. It's way too early to predict the demise of renewable energy at this point. The comically misguided predictions of the EIA and the IEA on growth in renewable energy over the past 15 years are a testament to how wrong people can be when they are locked in to a pro-status quo mindset. Nonlinear and disruptive changes tend to confuse and then surprise these types of analysts.

[@okeybuckeye524]

Great information but these videos need to appeal to an average attention span. I was under the impression that diesel autos approach a 40% efficiency mark. Is that not the case?

[@nikiss8]

very informative. neither of you quote sources of your data. definitely government is skewing data. another point is where the top research is at? you have a top team that is say 100% efficient meeting the goals say with gas, and second best is say wind with 20%. then gas doubles, while wind also doubles but could be 5x.

[@saultcrystals]

@@okeybuckeye524 That's just thermal efficiency at optimal conditions. There are a lot of losses downstream of the engine (mechanical, pumping exhaust, moving superchargers, etc.) that bring actual diesel efficiency lower. Depending on drive cycle, a lot of the energy used to accelerate the vehicle also gets wasted when braking. Idling is also a significant waste of energy. The Prof also mentioned the energy used to refine gasoline / diesel, so this is also a source of energy consumption. Oil from Canadian tar sands requires 25% or more of the energy contained in it to just be extracted, let alone refined.

[@saultcrystals]

@@nikiss8 Google "80% renewable energy clack" and "100% renewable energy Jacobson" to get to the heart of the discussion among experts. Basically, the only major disagreement is whether 80% renewables is a hard limit to surpass or 100% renewables is achievable.

[@TheOwenMajor]

This reads like a green peace attack ad, nonetheless, he should have provided his references.

[@speggeri90]

Hi from Europe. Great breakdown! Just wondering about the statement made roughly in the middle of the video (7:45) about modern economies being able to produce more stuff with less power usage. Isn't it true that our consumption levels are going up and up, but large majority of our actual stuff is made in developing economies, such as China, Indonesia, Bangladesh, etc. So in essence we haven't really figured out how to do more with less, but rather imported our energy intensive production to other places? Shouldn't we compare energy consumption levels in those countries as well, and not just look at western economy consumption levels? I would argue that developed economies are mostly running on hot air and momentum, rather than actual economic output. Debt and bubbles. Here in my home country our GDP hasn't grown in 10 years, but our debt levels have risen very dramatically. I don't see this as a healthy or sustainable trajectory.

[@alexliger1893]

How do fracking and coal compare when taking the whole extraction-to-consumption chain into account?

[@cindytepper8878]

Coal preparation isn't very energy intensive. It's really just sizing and washing

[@NotGovernor]

#MakeMarkersSquealAgain

[@DBuilder1977]

So how are the plants now going to get their CO2?

[@IMagnus123123123]

geothermal energy production should be much higher. Unlike wind and sun, you can produce energy 24/7. Wind and sun energy need to be stored in batteries to be used at night and when there is no wind. There is also enough geothermal energy on the west coast to power the whole nation many times over.

[@theartificialsociety3373]

Wow enlightening and depressing how little progress we made and how world is getting worse. We better get moving on science fast to get us out of this mess.

[@andraslibal]

Bio fuels are very bad for the environment ... all those regulations and subsidies going into a super inefficient way of making energy while using land that could be protected instead. There is no need to use up all the available land to make food either - the US has a huge surplus ... more land should be protected, with crop rotation, land allowed to rest every 7 years, more traditional/bio farming, protected areas next to croplands, changing of the huge monocultures, strips of forests between arable lands etc. This is going in the bad direction unfortunately. We actually have enough energy from gas to turn it around and make better, healthier food with more work and energy use.

[@duradim1]

The US has more trees today than it did back in 1900. A little know fact that has nothing to do with your comment. I so much agree that bio fuels are a huge waste of taxpayer's money and putting food in a gas tank is not as wise as putting food on the table.

[@andraslibal]

Glad it has more trees - I guess switching from burning trees to burning coal helped the trees a lot. Also now switching to burning gas is helping again with air quality. It is not just the number of trees in total but farming in such a way as to have edges/buffer areas around the fields where trees, wild flowers etc can grow (good for the bees). If we use more energy we might also need less toxins in the food production and that would be a great achievement.

[@Defunct231324141]

Can anyone please tell me what the control system tank is on an rbmk? I can't get a consistent answer from anyone. And I was interested before chernobyl (HBO) just fyi. I was born in Europe in July 86 so it I've always been interested!

[@Ironpancakemoose]

Im glad to see Boromir doing well after LOTR

[@1512TV]

Perhaps shifting of manufacturing activities to Asia had something to do with the leveling of the energy use in USA.

[@jeremymettler2844]

Definitely contributed, but many of the industries that have grown in place of manufacturing require lots of energy as well. The energy consumption of servers (like the ones allowing us to have this conversation) is very high.

[@andraslibal]

The new non-squeaky markers are way cool :)

[@DimitrisAndreou]

Great stuff, thank you. I more the squeeky markers

[@MisterUnicornFL]

Love the video but your chart at 8 min doesn't match your chart in the beginning? In your 8 min chart your renewables passed nuclear.

[@msotil]

Gas transportation is also cheaper and safer, via gas pipeline.

[@jayzdanielz1577]

Can you also post CO2 output equivalents by year for US and for the world by country? Do you have data on the breakdown in China, for example? That would be interesting data.

[@postItNoteObsession]

That title, Then and Now, Here and There, still makes me sad. Great lecture nonetheless.

[@randycarstens1100]

How do you write backwards so well?

[@GoldSrc_]

It's a camera/filming trick, he doesn't write backwards he just writes normally on a glass window and then flips the video in post.

[@thebloxxer22]

I did a project on Geothermal Generators recently, maybe you should look into Enhanced Geothermal Systems, or EGS.

[@michaelwebber4033]

Here in New Zealand we have shut down several major power stations and haven't run out of power, so I'd have to assume that we have massively reduced consumption.

[@TheOwenMajor]

Nope, you are flat like the rest of the world. I see coal has reduced but been replaced by oil and natural gas.

[@joeybabybaby5843]

There are two significant geothermal power plants in central Utah, Blundell and Sulphurdale.

[@turningpoint4238]

Thinking the comment on the rise of solar and wind isn't going to date very well.

[@Tore_Lund]

The US is literally 30 years behind Europe in renewables. It is not something that can be fixed in a handful of years. Many countries here are between 30 and 50% renewable, and that is not including biomass burning.

[@turningpoint4238]

@@Tore_Lund See how quickly the UK dropped coal and ramped up wind, doesn't take long.

[@Tore_Lund]

@@turningpoint4238 I was not talking about the will or political climate, But the UK has Ocean farms, They are easy as there are no zoning laws and neighbour complaints. The US will be different, most people live inland. I live in an European country where the majority of wind power is land based. On average it takes 8 years from a farm is planned until it start producing power. going from 7% to 43% today has taken 40 years. I don't think that there is less red tape in the US, which more than other countries respect private land ownership.

[@turningpoint4238]

@@Tore_Lund This year was pretty good in the USA, think cleantechnica had an article on it the other day.

[@Tore_Lund]

@@turningpoint4238 This one: cleantechnica.com/2020/01/09/us-electricity-solar-up-15-wind-up-9/ Wind up 9% and Solar up15%. However not mentioned in the title, but from the graphs in the article, Natural Gas increased by a similar amount of MW as the two others combined (Jan-Oct 2019), so title should rather read "Renewables are still hanging by their nails, but havent slipped further back the past year". Or is it another article you are thinking of? Still, I'm not bashing the US, Increasing renewables but not capping or even reducing fossil power generation, you'll never be able to reduce emissions in absolute figures, i.e. your emissions will only be slowed in growth, not actually decrease.

[@walterkersting1362]

Nuclear energy is a beautiful thing with a little bit of understanding…

[@fjalics]

Nonsense. How much are the 2 new reactors going to get paid at Vogtle? What are you going to do with the waste? Renewables are much cheaper.

[@walterkersting1362]

Frank RenewablesCheap I said with a little understanding; not like you...

[@fjalics]

@@walterkersting1362 Oh look, an Ad Hominem logical fallacy. Is the problem that I don't understand your beliefs sufficiently, or don't share them, or do you have anything grounded in fact? How about this little beauty. The average nuclear powerplant in the US came in at 250% of forecasted budget.

[@walterkersting1362]

Frank RenewablesCheap Wow, look how smart you are, hey internet! We got a freaking genius over here! See how impressed I am with your dumbassed liberal teachers average budget statistic? Where’d you go to school?

[@fjalics]

@@walterkersting1362 So personal attacks is all you got? That's disappointing. Every once in a while I learn something in an argument that I didn't know, but I guess this won't be one of those times.