How We Make Energy | Essentials of Environmental Science

Welcome to our new special series about the essentials of environmental science
Like this video? SUBSCRIBE to Hot Mess! ►► bit.ly/hotmess_sub
More info below…
When I first took an environmental science class, I didn’t quite get why energy got its own section. Because in a lot of ways, energy feels so detached from the environment. In order to produce and move energy, we dig deep into the ground for fuel, we burn that fuel to create electricity, and we clear trees to make room for power lines. It all seemed in opposition to the environment. And in a lot of ways, it is, most energy production is entirely extractive. The extraction, and the resulting pollution from most energy sources has an immense impact on the environment, and that’s why we’ve got to talk about energy in the context of environmental science.
Welcome to our Learning series about the essentials of environmental science. We’ll have more from this series in the following videos, so stay tuned!
Connect with us on:
Twitter: / hotmesspbs
Instagram: / hotmesspbs
Facebook: / hotmesspbs
Hot Mess T-shirts!:
store.dftba.com/products/hot-...
-----------
Host: Joe Hanson
Writer: Miriam Nielsen
Co-Writer: Scott Sowell, Ph.D. www.sowellscience.com/
Editor-in-chief: Joe Hanson
Creative Director: David Schulte
Executive Producer: Amanda Fox
Producer: Stephanie Noone
Editor/Animator: Sara Roma
-----------
Produced by PBS Digital Studios
Theme Music: Eric Friend/Optical Audio
Music: APM

[@magoilic1048]

Awesome video but there are a couple of important caveats: 1) how much a single source can produce v/s air pollution. So far a nuclear power plant gives you the most amount of energy for ton of CO2 2) how frequently do you have to maintain the product. Solar panels last around 20 years and are very difficult to recycle/reuse.

[@Michelrs]

solar panels last waaay longer than this. there are solar panel built 50 years ago and still kicking!

[@fireofenergy]

The nuclear closed cycle, such as the demonstrated _molten salt breeder reactor, _*_Alvin Weinberg at ORNL_* makes nuclear a renewable source by your definition because we would use less fuel than is eroded from the land, into the sea. We'd use on the order of 1% of the heavy metal per unit of energy and would not have any super long lasting radioactive wastes. We would still have highly rad fission products though with up to about 350 years of radiation. So ya, might want to Google that which I highlighted. And thanks, excellent energy stuff!

[@macaroniandtuna]

Risk of nuclear meltdown is a design problem, it's not inherent to nuclear power generation of all types. Newer reactor designs since the 3 mentioned were built 50+ years ago are designed to fail safe automatically without human input. Disposal of nuclear waste is a legal and design problem, again, not inherent; there are breeder reactor designs that can use the waste they generate, and some can even use the existing piles of waste as their source. In the US, nonproliferation laws and treaties don't allow the construction of breeder reactors. This could easily be changed with sufficient political effort.

[@mornon2394]

Are breeder reactors already viable, though? Each time I checked it was a "In a few years", but I never found news about them being viable for use in actual power plants yet (but it's some time I don't check).

[@macaroniandtuna]

@@mornon2394 I'm not any sort of an expert, but from what I understand there are experimental reactors proving the concepts in the US, Europe, and China.

[@mornon2394]

@@macaroniandtuna I'll try to look them up, thanks. As far as I know the concept is proven in theory, but there isn't much about using it in real power plants. But I'm no expert either, just to avoid misunderstanding, I just studied the matter by myself when I was trying to understand pros and cons of the technology.

[@Synthenist]

One of, if not "the" best KZbin Channels to learn about the Climate Change problem! Super Duper happy this platform exists! Thank you for these great series, I really enjoyed them! :)

[@comik300]

This series was awesome! Seeing it expanded in anyway would be cool, although idk where you go from here

[@ianreddish1878]

It's such a shame this channel couldn't keep its funding. It is superb.

[@cartfion]

Thanks for putting together so much information in a very clear and easy way to understand! You guys definitely make the difference on spreading the words of Science! Thank you for that.

[@mikeciul8599]

I was surprised that biomass wasn't mentioned in this video. I've noticed that a lot of electricity providers who advertise "100% renewable energy" mostly use biomass. I'm not sure I really understand the details of that - I'd love to know more!

[@garry8390]

Commercial scale biomass is greenwashing bullshit by in large. Not all Im sure but as a general rule its nonsense. There can be very good arguments made for local scale biomass however

[@vaclavzajac214]

Biomass shouldn't be called renewable or green energy. You basically grow some corn, turn it into ethanol and then burn it. Although it can be carbon neutral , because the corn collects CO2 from the atmosphere, it has a terrible impact on the environment. There are a lot of people and organizations like GreenPeace complaining about modern farming and the growth of corn for animals. The truth is that 60% of corn is used to make biofuels they support (the exact number depends on a country). Corn is one of the biggest causes of soil erosion. You can also just burn forests but that is even worse than burning fossil fuels.

[@cloudpoint0]

Usually the goal is to use debris wood as biomass fuel. Completely green. And better than leaving the debris wood from logging on the forest floor to rot into CO2 or perhaps cause brush fires. You certainly don’t want to cut down old growth forests purely to use as biomass.

[@vaclavzajac214]

@@cloudpoint0 this isn't a energy source but a waste solution. I saw estimates that all bio waste would cover something like 0.1% of electricity demand, that's just negligible. Most biofuels are from corn or rapeseed that overuse scarce farmland. It's quite entertaining to see GreenPeace and other organizations complain about lack of water caused by farmland overuse and then they plan to produce 20% of electricity by biomass by 2050 which is just impossible to achieve.

[@DracarmenWinterspring]

3:30 - just to be picky, while this is true for practical timescales (and we should absolutely be converting to "renewable" sources as a species), every energy source runs out eventually, and while using these sources won't make then run out faster, the rate at which we can use those sources is more hard capped. Also the sun runs on nuclear energy and every other source on the chart (except geothermal?) is ultimately powered by the sun.

[@mathieudegrotte]

Great educational video ! For the following episodes, as it was said, it would be nice to know (and have figures) how much each source can produce, the different efficiencies of energy production sources, and the ideas to better store and maximize efficiency for renewable sources - also hints to use less and waste less energy on our everyday basis.

[@elisadoc]

Love this for AP environmental Science. Please make more video from ES content

[@Mattia_Chinello]

Very beautiful video! Only one thing miss, there is also the energy for heating and cooling of buildings.

[@DaBlondDude]

Well explained, easy to understand ... subtle choices of background music lol

[@grahamdean9978]

Couldn't help but notice how wind and solar energy was glossed over without mentioning the drawbacks of life expectancy, and future disposal of un-recyclable decommissioned apparatus.

[@giovannirafael5351]

I never heard of solar panels being un-recyclable? Do you have links? I'd really like to read about that

[@grahamdean9978]

@@giovannirafael5351 if you are that interested Google it or research it like I had to. You won't find out anything about it on sites like ' Hot Mess'. While you are at it , find out how they bury wind turbine blades because they can't be recycled.

[@aarononeal9830]

Hot mess should do a video about ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees

[@familywilliams4058]

Would it be possible to do something about liquid salt nuclear reactors? I was told once that it was impossible for them to overheat and go critical, that they reduced volume of nuclear fuel put into them, that hydrogen was a bi-product of power production, that they could be built smaller, and that the reactors could be buried under the ground during operation. Is it true that they can do all these things, or was the person informing me exaggerating their benefits?

[@vaclavzajac214]

Yes, it's true. All reactors today shut down on their own in emergency and it is literally impossible to melt it, no matter how hard you try. The reactors you mentioned are called gen IV. They take safety to a completely different level to make them even autonomous so they don't even need any staff at all. All reactors create heat that can be used to heat homes or to hake hydrogen or biofuels, some reactors already do that today. There are some SMR (small modular reactors) being built today. They are used on submarines, aircraft carriers or icebreakers as an alternative to oil. The main advantage is that you have to refuel them only once every 40 years. Some companies try to make them commercially available for the grid and there are some plans for 2025. Their main advantage is that they are smaller cheaper and you can get them anywhere with a truck, this would be useful in countries like Canada where where the population density is very small. The gen IV would allow us to use different fuels, the most interesting is probably Thorium. It's three times more abundant than Uranium, you don't have to enrich it( natural Uranium contains two types of Uranium, fissile and fertile. Most reactors today can only burn the fissile part, but it only makes 0.7% of natural Uranium so you have to enrich it to 5%, it's a complicated and expensive process) and most importantly, it can't be weaponized. It's a bit complicated and don't really know how to explain. Another advantage is that the nuclear waste is much less short lived, about 400 years and in much smaller quantities. CANDU reactors already do something similar by using natural unenriched Uranium, the fuel is really cheap, but you need something called heavy water that increases the construction cost. So yes, the new reactors would bring a lot of new opportunities and technology, but some of it already used today

[@samanthabailey02]

Thank you

[@DonBeardy]

Are there plans to do an entire video on nuclear energy? There's a lot to cover from the different mining processes (open bit, shaft, and in situ), to the different reactor design types (including those with passive safety and immunity to meltdown), and to the end of the fuel cycle with potential for fuel reprocessing, burner reactors, waste storage. There's a lot to talk about with nuclear energy and you just scratched the surface here. It's an important conversation to have since nuclear energy is 55% of the clean energy in the US and nearly 1/2 in Europe. A lot of politicians/people don't see the necessity of maintaining existing nuclear power plants and the potential for expansion as a bridge energy source to a completely sustainable energy system.

[@AthAthanasius]

19:37 - I have my doubts that *that* train runs on oil.

[@alephnull6691]

Yeah. Coal one Binod

[@iwiffitthitotonacc4673]

Another case of Fukushima being mentioned but not Onagawa 😏

[@keenheat3335]

technically you could have a thermocouple which generate electricity directly from heat via seebeck effect, extremely low efficiency though. Mostly used in probe meant to sent to outer solar system where sunlight is too weak for solar cell.

[@WHYNKO]

How about using the Van Allen belt to extract energy?

[@captainastral]

I was just on a site where they proposed pumping stuff into the atmosphere to divert the sun’s rays, to hopefully cool the planet a bit. Blocking solar radiation by tinkering with the atmosphere is both unsafe, and a pathetic half-measure. The better course would be to block some degree of solar radiation before it reaches the atmosphere. Satellite solar collectors can capture solar radiation and convert it to electricity. The gigantic shadows of these solar arrays can be steered to cool specific areas, for example the warmer ocean waters that a tropical storm is tracking towards. Everyone knows that these storms strengthen when they pass over these warmer stretches of water, and a cooling effect placed in the track of a storm will deprive it of the energy to become a hurricane. It seems likely that proper implementation of these effects will also allow for the possibility of steering these nascent storms away from landfall. There are many uses for the incredible amounts of electricity that can be generated, almost as a fringe benefit of planetary cooling engineering efforts. Some may be used for space based factories. Some can be beamed down to earth-based stations as microwaves, and inserted directly int the power grid. Another complementary approach is to use the electricity to separate water from comet and asteroid ice into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is finally being recognized as one of the promising fuel alternatives we have been looking for, and who doesn't like oxygen. Actually, keep the oxygen up there, they will need it for breathing as other projects get rolling. This won't all pay for itself, but the money saved from avoiding most hurricane damage will help a lot. Plus, like, saving lives and such… We are already changing climate, we have to get smart about it.

[@Dragrath1]

Uranium is not the source of radioactivity in nuclear fission waste it is basically the fission products. Uranium isotopes have extremely long half lives however when atoms are split by fission the resulting products are effectively random combinations . There is also the issue of isotopes as only the shorter lived U 235 is a naturally occurring fissile isotope. Other isotopes used in reactors need to be synthesized by neutron bombardment to make Thorium into to U 233 or Uranium 238 into Plutonium 239. additionally the reactor types discussed are all water based reactors which are inherently more risky as the water is used as the coolant and moderator but if too much reactions go off it can boil resulting in a runaway reaction as as both the coolant and moderator are lost. Molten salt reactors don't suffer the same flaw though they have other problems particularly the highly corrosive nature of molten salts.part of the problem with radioactive waste is that it gets dumped so one area of development to increase efficiency is to get even more work out of the waste which is rich in short to medium half life radioisotopes. One issue glanced over here was the sheer inefficiency of Uranium extraction as it is a strong lithophile or element that preferentially binds to oxygen. Lithophiles like the rare Earth elements As well over over 99% of Uranium being U238 which retards or blocks fission chain reactions means only a tiny amount of that Uranium is fissile but it takes an enormous amount of energy to separate Uranium from rocks in the first place as Uranium usually doesn't concentrate instead occurring well distributed through the Earth's crust. While it is a heavy element it needs to be remembered that due to its strong affinity with Oxygen close to 100% of the Uranium within the material which would go to form the Earth is locked in the crust particularly continental crust. This means most of the Uranium in differential worlds with accessible surfaces is in the Earth's Crust with our Moon being the other top candidate. In fact in the ancient past U235 did form a natural Uranium reactor in Gabon if I remember correctly. Solar is great but the construction and end of lifetime costs are not negligible they need to remain in use for a long time to break even in terms of carbon emissions alone. Moreover large scale renewables like Wind farms and especially solar arrays begin to directly effect the climate in complex ways we don't yet fully understand

[@soufianekharroubi8835]

In Oklo, Gabon, 2 billion years ago to be precise ;)

[@Dragrath1]

@@soufianekharroubi8835 Yep lots of interesting stuff in old cratons

[@soufianekharroubi8835]

@@ForzaJersey I am also pro nuclear but this technology cannot be implemented everywhere, especially where big earthquake are expected (like Japan... or California) or where water will soon be seriously lacking because of climate change. I also wonder how it compares to geothermal energy in terms of environmental impact (not just co2)

[@JeremySmith-wc4lh]

@@soufianekharroubi8835 neat points :)

[@Alex-cw3rz]

Just to point out while nuclear is alright, it isn't a catch all solution to Climate change. As in a hyperthetical the world just went fully nuclear, we'd have already failed at mitigating climate change, due to the exceptionally long time it takes to build a nuclear power plant.

[@Who-vt9oh]

Our global economic system requires massive consumption, at ever increasing rates. Our planet can't sustain this indefinitely. Something's gotta give, I pray to god it's the economy that breaks before the ecosystem does.

[@DarnYeet]

Actually, Uranium is renewable, if extracted from seawater. Look it up, it's amazing.

[@Brandon_letsgo]

Uranium used can also be recycled. France is the world's leader on that. Plus, we're only 10 to 15 years from molten-salt reactors using both Uranium and Thorium.

[@Brandon_letsgo]

@@gregoryspecht3497 Geothermal is a small slice of the heat inside the planet. We can say that geothermal is energy from thorium decay.

[@Sasha-rl6lv]

9:04 the lick lol

[@YouAskedForThis563]

Increasing battery meat and dairy production in a single location is stackable in a skyscraper and produce crap that in turn has enough methane to distill the crap in to automotive fuel, bunker fuel and tar. Hydro-carbon fuel distillation also works on rubber and plastics, eliminating the need for landfills. The small amount of ash that remain after fuel distillation is the minerals that plants extracted from the soil in the growing process and, in the ash form, is ready to use in cement, reducing the global carbon dioxide emissions. Fuel distillation is a process that any daring person can do in their backyard, unlike mining or oil drilling which is a monopoly endeavor. - South African patent featured in the April 2013 South African issue of Popular Mechanics.

[@giovannirafael5351]

For anyone complaining about nuclear energy, maybe you should check the video about nuclear energy, where it talks about the benefits of it. Also, try to remember that just one approach won't solve climate change.

[@mizukiminowa7835]

Well I would also like to know can't we make more renewable energy by using the heat that's been trapped within the earth or what about carbon dioxide can't we make some kind of machine that reuses the waste we created? I mean that is 2 birds with one stone right we're solving the energy problem along with saving the planet

[@TheRealE.B.]

1. If you mean the heat that's DEEP inside the earth, then the answer is that it's too deep to reach in most places. If you mean thermal energy from global warming, it's too diffuse. You need a large gradient for heat to be useful. Look up "heat death of the universe" to find out why that energy isn't useful. 2. Carbon dioxide needs energy to be turned back into fuel. That's what plants do, using the sun. The problem is that modern society could never run off of just burning wood (which is dirty, anyway). Fossil fuels have built up over millions of years, so by burning so much over the past couple centuries, we've done the equivalent of spending an entire family fortune on one wild, extravagant party. The goal of renewable energy is to keep the party going somehow, without relying on fossil fuels, which are harmful and will run out eventually. I would *assume* that photovoltaics and other solar technologies will always be more efficient, because you skip the whole unnecessary step of burning stuff, but if you could ever figure out how to do something like artificial photosynthesis in an economically competitive way, you'd be a very rich person. Related developing technologies are carbon capture, which doesn't actually use carbon dioxide but at least puts it somewhere where it won't do damage to the environment, and biofuels, which is still just burning stuff... but stuff that you recently grew, not ancient reserves you found in the ground. Basically a fancy new version of burning wood.

[@mizukiminowa7835]

@@TheRealE.B. wow that is a lot to take in too bad none of us are batman

[@Testuser582]

Check in India's hydroelectric projects to see the impacts on environment. Don't forget about the undocumented forced displacement for these projects and river linking initiatives

[@d3m3nt3dmous3]

2:40 Toldja Bah, different video series. Nevermind.

[@larisael-netanany488]

You could have at least mention OTEC and OMTEC

[@fernandovalner]

at 5:08 there is a mistake, mantis prayer arent herbivore. they are carnivore.

[@AlecMuller]

I think you were watching a different video

[@Dmol8]

You left out tidal power plants. Otherwise a good video.

[@vertical3life]

Is burning plant oil considered renewable energy?

[@vaclavzajac214]

It isn't, it has a terrible impact on soil erosion and forest destroying.

[@burnsloads]

Nuclear energy is the safest, most abundant and energy dense power resource that we have. LFTR MSR

[@giovannirafael5351]

It is definitely not abundant

[@cloudpoint0]

It’s not even energy dense with the need for a development exclusion zone immediately around a nuclear plant and the requirement for a low population zone that extends even farther. Much bigger complete exclusion zones are needed after an accident. Safer? A fuel spill at a solar energy farm is a sunny day.

[@Wind-oh-Wishp]

I wish there were more honest people actually caring about the truth and their childrens' future. But too many don't, and fall for big corporations and politicians instead.

[@burnsloads]

Thousands of lives were not lost from Chernobyl. It's estimated, by the UN, to be in the 50s. The biggest killer was misinformation and fear mongering.

[@f.b.jeffers0n]

I wish I was an engineer, because there has to be a way to build a hybrid machine. I have ideas, but all I can do is draw...

[@TheRealE.B.]

Drawing used to be an essential skill for engineers. I mean, it still is, but it's usually done with computers now. The point is, you need a way to get a design out of your brain and into the brain of the guy that's going to build it and, even before that, to discover and fix problems with the design while it's still "on the drawing board." Paper and pixels are cheaper than stone and steel. "Art without engineering is dreaming. Engineering without art is calculating."

[@Soken50]

The video is fairer than most eco-oriented channels tend to be but still leans heavily in favour of renewables and against nuclear energy. Let me be clear, renewables are great to reduce the use of existing fossil fuel power infrastructure, HOWEVER they CANNOT replace it unless and until there is a way to store and distribute power on a national/international level at a scale of days to months. the power network operates at a fixed voltage intensity and frequency, it must match the demand exactly at all times, lest you want to be left in the dark every time the wind fall or a cloud passes by. To replace fossil fuels you either have geothermal, hydro, or nuclear power. the first 2 are dependant on geography, once you have maxxed those all you're left with is nuclear. It's not ideal, it is dangerous but has been made safe from experience from past disasters, it requires little material extraction, even compared to renewables with their giant concrete piles, ungodly amounts of rebar and steel masts and sheets of rare metals, nuclear also requires little space compare to the millions of acres you'd have to cover in mirrors and windmills for and equivalent maximum capacity dependent on weather. Regarding the waste you cleverly selected the 2 most inept countries at dealing with it, the US and Australia, while the rest of the world reprocesses it, melts it into glass, stockpiles them in steel cases in concrete envelopes under a warehouse awaiting the approuval and excavation of underground repositories where it will be safely contained. Waste isn't an issue, we've kept 95% of the radioactivity a few meters under concrete in a few acres of hangar space in France for morte than 50 years, most of the waste is low activity rubble or reusable fuel after re-enriching it for 4th generation reactors. Climate change is enough of a challenge without sneering at solutions for no good reason. Let's use all the tools at our disposal and let's transition away from fossil fuels that do more long lasting damage to us and the planet in a day than nuclear ever has in a century.

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

Even in the US, the nuclear waste storage failure is due to nuclear panic more than bad planning. when the US nuclear industry was being built, there were plans to store all the waste under a huge mountain in new Mexico where they would have the tunnels collapsed in on the filled storage caverns and it would be safe basically forever. people panicked about having trains with giant barrels of concrete that had a little nuclear waste in the middle going through their towns and about having it miles under their mountain, none of which was actually dangerous.

[@Soken50]

@@thamiordragonheart8682 It's more complicated than that, there are laws preventing nuclear operators from doing pretty much anything with the waste but keeping it on site, which thankfully doesn't cause any damage in itself since it's just sitting there being monitored, but with many nuclear plants closing, aggregating the waste in one or a few sites would make inventory, surveillance and eventually processing of the waste a lot easier.

[@Brandon_letsgo]

I found very misleading calling natural gas fossil gas. It makes no sense at all.

[@Soken50]

@@Brandon_letsgo How is that misleading ? It's a fossil fuel under gaseous form, it perfectly conveys the point that it comes from the ground and we should avoid extracting it unless it replaces dirtier alternatives like coal.

[@Brandon_letsgo]

@@Soken50 Natural gas was created by natural process throughout the years. So we should called it NATURAL GAS.

[@DtWolfwood]

why not thorium reactors?

[@naotamf1588]

build one if you are so eger. when you try to convince investors they will point at the falling price of solar and battery solutions. It might just be to late for thorium at this point...

[@Alex-cw3rz]

@@ForzaJersey your comments always make me laugh, as you are as scientifically illiterate as the people you complain about. The reason Thorium is not widely used, is because it's more expensive, takes longer to set up and with most places that have Thorium available also have Uranium (which as before mentioned makes it more attractive). It's not activists, it's the cost-benefit analysis which often excludes the externalities (where Thorium does better.) Also this bit about fantasy renewables, I have to ask what about hydroelectric you know like the 9 out the 10 largest power plants in the world are hydroelectric, they out perform nuclear and are quicker to build which is key with mitigating climate change. The biggest problem with nuclear is not it's safety, it's the time it takes to build them, which would take to long for us to mitigate climate change in time. What I believe in, is what scientists believe in which is a multi lateral approach, we need mutiple types of renewables, and with nuclear too.

[@lemonsqueezy8549]

One word - proliferation! Its the main reason nobody wants to have nuclear energy based on thorium as a fuel. Imagine a world in which every mad little country can build their own nuclear weapons..

[@vaclavzajac214]

@@lemonsqueezy8549 link between nuclear reactors and weapons is same as link between 911 planes and fossil fuels. The gap is really wide and you can't make a bomb just by owning a reactor. There are also international regulations that control the use and production of nuclear weapons.

[@sampickett4338]

Green Hydrogen is a great way to produce Renewable Energy and as it scales the cost will come down during this decade. The future is Electric + Hydrogen ☀️💨🔋💧🎥🌎👌

[@darthmaul216]

Lightning ⚡️ ⚡️ ⚡️ ⚡️ ⚡️

[@starprice7389]

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🥀🪲🌺💐🦙🌼🦞🙍‍♂️

[@peterdollins3610]

The main melt down was Chernoybol. An aquaintance worked at the UK Nuclear plants went through the ex-Soviet Union and its satellites to help boost the safety of the plants. He came back with horrifying stories of safety lapses. It was the Soviet regimes that were unsafe rather than Nuclear Power plants. In Japan more poeple died as a result of being moved from hospitals or from home when fragile than any died from radiation. The Japenese people who flew out from fear suffered higher radiation on their aeroplane flights than in 'the zone.' See George Monbiot on this. We need a world Nculear Safety inspectorate that visits every plant every eighteen months. As is hundreds of millions die from the indirect efffects of fossil fuels and billions more are harmed. Nuclear is associated with A & H-bombs: why there is this hysteria over Nuclear Power. Most Nuclear waste is low level no more harmful than the sun. The high radiation waste is very small. Coal power stations produce more radiaton than Nuclear Power plants. There are now small easily produced safe nuclear power plants that could be set up around the industrial high energy needs industries IF Government would fund the first few years to a decade. After all Governments funded the original Nuclear Power Stations to make the Bomb. See 'Sustainable Energy -- without the hot air' by David JC MacKay. We cannot go sustainable or renewable without Nuclea's base load. There are promising technologies coming but it will be another 20 to 40 years befoe they can do it all alone. We do not have even 10 years, perhaps no more than 5.

[@Brandon_letsgo]

All nuclear accidents were caused by human failure! Three Mile Island operators made mistakes; Chernobyl was a terrible designed reactor AND even in this case the accident would not had occurred without human mistakes. Fukushima? The same: humans made mistakes by putting the diesel generators and the fuel almost in the ocean line. The seal walls were also not tall enough. Again, the plant itself survived the tsunami(the reactor shut itself down about an hour BEFORE the tsunami hit).

[@mrZylo01]

Good point, i agree! I also belive that our power consumption needs need to be lowered where ever we can humanitarily justify it.

[@vaclavzajac214]

@@Brandon_letsgo but on average, nuclear is the safest energy source known.

[@Brandon_letsgo]

@@vaclavzajac214 I know, man. Even today's LWR are the safest energy source ever. Advanced nuclear like molten-salt reactors are gonna be roughly 100% safe.

[@taibhsear71]

Nuclear: Steam is the most powerful greenhouse gas. Most of the heating is caused by water vapor. Granted, the air can only hold so much water vapor and rains it out when saturated but the steam will stay in the air even at 100% humidity.

[@vaclavzajac214]

Not all water vapor is the same. Trees are cooling the planet by releasing water vapor too, so should we cut them all down? I don't think so. The steam forms clouds that have a high albedo, therefore they can help cool the planet.

[@goingleft3863]

@@vaclavzajac214 Read the comment. It's a wonderful skill once you learn it.

[@vaclavzajac214]

@@goingleft3863 I read the comment already. The bad steam is the one that is trapped in stratosphere.

[@gaeb-hd4lf]

Can you elaborate on the last sentence? It seems a bit contradicting...

[@lamegoldfish6736]

I'm from Tennessee, and I remember the coal ash incident in 2008. It sickened me. I was still several miles away, but I hated to hear all the damage it did to the environment. There has got to be a better way to get energy.

[@euanrundle3091]

Another, great and informative video! Thanks guys!

[@MusicalRaichu]

Loved the series! Comprehensive and easy to understand. Future series idea: examine the (few) countries that are taking climate change seriously and how they're adapting and changing their energy habits.

[@JeremySmith-wc4lh]

Loved the series!!

[@IsYitzach]

Solar can be used to heat salts or water to spin a turbine in the concentrated solar thermal method. PS10 has an efficiency of 17%. Given photovoltaics are doing 14-47% depending on the tech and how experimental you want to get, I can see why you didn't mention them.

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

when we talk about hydropower, we only talk about large dams, which are terrible and hugely destructive. why doesn't any ever mention in-stream hydro or tidal energy? you basically just put turbines directly in a river or estuary and don't block anything off or destroy any homes or ecosystems. the power isn't dispatchable, but the cost is so much lower on nearly every metric. Since almost all large cities are on a major river or estuary, you can use in-stream river and tidal power to provide enormous amounts of energy for major population centers.

[@lukasheimann9932]

I love this series

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

when we talk about wind energy, why doesn't anyone talk about kite power? it is cheaper and easier to build, has a better capacity factor because you can fly the kites at a much higher altitude, and unlike a wind turbine, doesn't tend to kill birds as much because they know how to deal with a flying thing at high altitude better than a giant slowly spinning turbine. it doesn't even have as much on an aesthetic impact as traditional turbines.

[@vaclavzajac214]

If you mean toy kites or some alternative of them, then the answer is that you can't get energy from them.

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

depends on exaclty what you are looking at, but kite power either means using kiteboarding kites or small tethered aircraft with generating propellers on them. the airplane approach just uses the tethered flight to cover a large area at higher altitude and lower cost that a traditional turbine could and run power down through the tether. the kiteboarding kite approach takes advantage of the fact that they pull much harder when doing figure eights than when sitting strieght overhead, so that a manuvering kite pulls out a reel, generating energy, while it reels in a stationary one for a tiny fraction of the energy cost. the airplane ones tend to generate more power, while the kite ones are more portable, like for disaster relief.

[@alexixeno4223]

Is there any news about a wind turbine version for tidal forces and waves?

[@thatdiyguyraymondmonk1225]

I only clicked on this because of the title. And to say simple science... We don’t make energy, energy is simply just transformed from one form to another.

[@PyjamaRex]

I'm from Québec and most (90%+) of our energy comes from Hydro since we have a lot of water and rivers. The last damp we built (2008?) was only made to keep our knowledge and expertise in the hydroelectricity field and basically show of. At this date, all other option available were more efficient than what the damp could provide in terms of MW. The energy "shift" the world needs is also a big deal in the political field and that, takes some time to change.. Thanks for coming to my TED-Talk

[@soufianekharroubi8835]

I think you meant 90% of electricity, not energy ;)

[@PyjamaRex]

@@soufianekharroubi8835 you are very correct

[@lorenzoblum868]

The real dilemma is not so much how we make energy but more how we WASTE energy... Edit. Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?

[@1224chrisng]

Great series! Can you do a course on Ecology or do an episode on Aquatic Ecosystems?

[@cccircuit8296]

For dams you forgot about the silt that's held back, that would otherwise act as fertilizer for plants downstream

[@Alex-cw3rz]

That would probably come under disruption to river ecology

[@jonathanclark5240]

Thanks Joe--great summary! It would be great to see more specific data on the environmental impact on all these sources of energy--ie: mining, land use, emissions, waste, etc. versus power output. Would you do a further episode on that? For exampke, I bought solar panels for my house before I knew that the silicon was mined (rather than made from sand). I'm also concerned with their environmental impact once they stop producing power in 20-30 years, as there is currently no recycling program for solar panels. What is the overall environmental toll versus gain of my solar panels?

[@witekborowski1410]

A big problem for renewables is their footmark. It is estimated, that about 1/4 of UKs land area would have to be used to make the country powered 100% by renewables. This might be a smaller problem in the US through, as a large part of the population live in single-family houses which can have their own PVs installed.

[@dragonminz602]

Nice video :D With solar i want to add the 'Grätzelzelle'. Is way cheeper as conventional solar engergi and is more environment friendly. Great stuff

[@diegorodriguesdesouza7389]

Brazilian northeast is one of the best places in the world for solar energy, sadly we don't use them as often as we should.

[@yungo1rst]

will you be doing an episode on the solar updraft towers?

[@jeroenrl1438]

In the Netherlands we've had a lot of fossil gas mining resulting in earthquakes that have damaged a lot of houses.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

Thanks for this video. Learning about this is important! Learning this we can know how to switch to renewables energy and save the planet. :)))

[@derradfahrer5029]

some solar thermal actually heats water which spinns a turbine. Solar towers and parabolic mirrors.

[@soufianekharroubi8835]

I do not believe that it represents a significant fraction of power generated from solar energy but you are perfectly right!

[@LLCL2012]

I want to share the experience of the energy production in my country Colombia, here 68% is hydroelectric and 30% is from Coal, as a country blessed with geography the construction of dams is relatively easy, but we have had major problems, recently in the construction of the biggest hydroelectric project so far, Hidroituango, due to corruption during the building process the dam has structural problems, the last year the powerhouse was flooded and there was a huge alert due to a possible breaking, putting in danger more than 100k people who live downstream because it was built on a fault line, also in the context of environmental justice many people who lived on the flooded area of the dam were displaced by force by illegal groups acting alongside the government, also that region is a hotspot of the internal conflict of my country, many bodies have been buried in that region now they may never be returned to their families. We also have the biggest surface coal mine in the world, "el cerrejón", it has had some controversy, like a project to divert the course of a river but quite surprisingly it is more environmentally friendly than other mines, they fill the holes of extraction and re-forest the area with local flora, also those areas are now being protected by rangers paid by the mine.

[@soufianekharroubi8835]

I think you meant electricity production, not energy production. In any case, thanks for your insight, it was very nice to read :)

[@Brandon_letsgo]

Worth to remember that the coal from Colombia is high-grade coal. It has higher heat value and less carbon, sulfur, and other pollutants.

[@ryko9975]

omg thank you for bringing up Aliso Canyon facility, its literally on the line of LA country and a lot of people live literally right next to it. It has caused so many problems and gov Newsom (even though he promised) has made it clear he wont issue orders to shut it down

[@ScootrRichards]

No mention at all of oceanic wave power? I realize it's still a new tech, at low percentage compared to others, but like other sustainable power sources, it'll get there. It's still growing.

[@kingsrook9866]

Two questions: 1: What are the CO2 emissions from a run-of-the-river hydro plant 2: What percentage of CO2 emissions from coal are from burning it for energy, versus the CO2 production of the coal used in steel manufacturing?

[@1sdani]

There's also the Wind Turbine "Syndrome" Cognitohazard

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

Alge Based Synthetic Crude Oil!!!!

[@eriksundell1400]

Great video, but when it came to the nuclear reporting I'd wish for a comparison when mentioning deaths solely for nuclear power generation - without comparisons we don't get a perspective, and without perspective, well, one think nuclear is very dangerous when some thousand net deaths is actually very little.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

The problem is the way Nuclear gets to that safe nature is by a huge amount of money and secondly and most importantly time. If we were too suddenly try and make the whole world nuclear to solve climate change, we'd just fail mitigating climate change, as it takes so long to build a nuclear power plant. Nuclear can supplement our power production, but it's just not a catch all solution.

[@MijnAfspeellijst1234]

17:04 "a lot of the best places are already in use" Source? We are barely using any geothermal energy, why you say we already using the best stuff? Don't say stuff without researching and fact checking. ty

[@vaclavzajac214]

Iceland is a good example

[@Drygyer]

I was hoping Joe would talk about thorium as I beleive its a better source of nuclear power than Uranium is.

[@thenoobypro790]

I have a question of if you are monitized and if this channel is why doesn’t this channel actually do something other than talk about climate change if you do work in a studio. I am willing to bet that you don’t walk or ride a bike to your workplace you take a car essentially contradicting yourselves if you are monetized who does the money go to I am sure it’s not just the employees such as the people actually talking or the editors it Probally filters into a big company I just don’t get it I watch the news every day and I only see a 1 or 2 minute session on it and most of the time they don’t help either and the only reason they are talking is because of the CURRENT hurricanes and fires I also have a feeling that news channels and unfortunately politicians don’t really care most people only talk about climate change for the money being a 11 year old living on the coast it really scares me not because of the sea level or the tempiture but what scares me is that the people in power that can really help either don’t care make a joke out of it or use it to give them money i just hope you see this comment so you guys truly understand that even the young generation cares and are scared knowing that so many people don’t care a perfect example of this is the USA where I live the politicians (like the president) make jokes and are risking lives for their money as I type this I am seeing news stories about the president saying “luckily it’s going to get cooler” similarly because winters coming I am not going to get into politics but officials don’t care for the people who will be affected as you pointed out on this channel the top 10% of county’s produce 50% of the worlds climate change and the lowest 50% produce less than 10% of all carbon emissions anyways it makes me angry and that’s why i am writing this it’s to show my gereratin is aware and we just want to have the same experience my parents and grandparents have to have children and grandchildren anyways I am not going to rant but it’s just not fair. Edit: and before somebody tells me something like “life isn’t fair” or “that’s the way it is” it’s just not it’s greed and lack of care for the young generation

[@lorenzo--rossi]

Ok, we’re screwed.

[@alial-fatlawi5565]

The peophet Mohammed Said: dont waste water, even if you have an entitet river. Great video btw!

[@michaelolsen2760]

The technical term "a really big magnet" lol

[@azdjedi]

Alex Epstein's Fossil Future is a good study about this.

[@jonathanclark5240]

Anyone else tired of the Natural Gas commercials that keep playing before and after these videos on Climate Change?

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

There getting worried that the public is revolting against their products. Don’t worry it’s just good old capitalism. Eventually their gonna have to switch to renewables to meat demand.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

ForzaJersey oh I didn’t know. I do know that natural gas is a fossil fuel that’s why I figured that lol

[@Alex-cw3rz]

@@ForzaJersey why do you just constantly lie? It's any power station, that makes wind and solar stable, it doesn't have to natural gas, in fact hydro and coal are the best for this.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI what the guy said was a lie, he's lied all over the comment section so it's no surprise. Natural gas hasn't "underwritten" the solar "boom", to keep a grid stable, you just need another power plant, and actually coal and hydro and the best at this, not natural gas.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

We say no to pay to win oh I didn’t check. Should be more aware of misinformation in the comments next time thanks.

[@soufianekharroubi8835]

Thx for the video, you guys make a great job! It could have been nice to say how many casualties happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima: respectively 20 000 and 0, cancers up until 2065 included. This is the result of the UNSCEAR which is basically the IPCC of radioactivity and represents the scientific consensus. Don't believe me, go check it out. It could also have been great to point out that no electricity generation system is renewable. The sun, wind, water in a dam and earth heat are renewable energy sources but the systems needed to convert that energy into electricity are not. I think the graph at 20:20 is missing wood as primary source of energy (which is the most used renewable energy in the world, just not for electricity generation)

[@msteresa653]

Industrial civ must and will fall. Sorry y'all. U can't have your cake and eat it too

[@XeLaNoiD]

⚡

[@aaldrikbakker]

No sane person would say that mining is a very efficient way to do business and generate energy and that it's a logical thing to mine.

[@Soken50]

Yet every single thing you produce requires mineral extraction, be it for fuel, metals, fertilizers,... Unless you mastered alchemy, in which case congratulations, your Nobel prize is awaiting.

[@euanrundle3091]

⚡⚡⚡

[@zentouro]

⚡⚡⚡

[@TheReal_ist]

11:20 I like how u don't mention MSR (Molten Salt Reactors) or literally any NEW REACTOR design that doesn't have these archaic problems. Uranium isn't a good way to take advantage of Fission it never was. Maybe if Science educators like yourself would stop teaching these archaic fission designs we'd have Nuclear power again. BUT NOPE your old so its all u know or care about. OHHH JOY!!

[@HotMessPBS]

When someone builds a molten salt reactor with scalable, commercial potential, we will gladly do a video about it! For now, we're focusing on energy sources that we can implement now, in the scale of time to halt dangerous climate change

[@TheReal_ist]

@@HotMessPBS Ya its not relevant in the slightest but alrit. If all u do is report on the archaic classic fission designs just cause thats whats still left over. Then the public will never move on from there ignorant mindset of "Nuclear is bad". But please keep pedaling that Classic Fission is the only way so we NEVER MOVE ON. Appreciate u guys throwing the future away.

[@vaclavzajac214]

@@HotMessPBS there isn't a single big country with at least 50% or electricity from solar but still put it there. Small modular reactors are used on submarines and aircraft carriers so we know they work. Plutonium breeders exist in Canada, France and India, Thorium breeders in India and several research sites. Liquid salts are at research reactors, liquid metals are in France. The technology is here, it works so it would be nice to at least mention it.

[@giovannirafael5351]

@@vaclavzajac214 "The MSRE and aircraft nuclear reactors used enrichment levels so high that they approach the levels of nuclear weapons. These levels would be illegal in most modern regulatory regimes for power plants." And most other technologies are still in initial stages of testing and adapting. The guy is only saying that it is not viable yet, it's not that deep.

[@vaclavzajac214]

@@giovannirafael5351 MSR today use Thorium and matter how pure it is, you will never make a bomb out of it. To start the reactor, you can use breeded Uranium from another reactor or plutonium from old weapons which is actually an advantage. Aircraft carriers use HEU but I don't think you realize how hard it is steal it. If someone steals your aircraft carrier, used nuclear fuel isn't really something you should worry about.

[@seasong7655]

3:33 Combustion can be renewable too depending on the fuel source

[@ianprado1488]

yes, wonderful biomass

[@Alex-cw3rz]

No it can't, it may not release C02, but it isn't renewable.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

@@ianprado1488 biomass isn't renewable. It may be fine for the environment, but it isn't renewable.

[@whafrog]

If you reduced the population of cats by 0.0004%, you'd save enough birds to power the entire country with wind. Never mind all the birds lost to skyscrapers every year. The whole wind-birds-bats thing is a talking point promoted by the fossil fuel industry.

[@betawarier346]

With great *Power* comes great responsibility if you know what i mean ;)

[@simonkey21]

eeeeearly

[@lucasliam8238]

Surface mining? The Bagger 288

[@randyyansaud1797]

yeah but no... once you take a closer look, it's easy to realize neither wind or solar can be considered renewable (at least, not based on our current technologies) 1-wind energy requires huge amounts of ressources to build those turbines (large underground concrete base to hold each turbine, materials for the main body and blades, as well as the magnets needed for the generator), have a farily short lifespan (20 years on average, often less), and are hardly ever recycled once out of commission. what's more, the capacity factor is just horrendous, occasionally spiking at 50%, but actually averaging below 25% -if not 15% over the span of a year, meaning you need 4 to 8 times more wind turbines to actually get closer to the targeted energy production (ie 4-8 MW of wind turbines for a target of an average of 1MW all year), and if you factor in an energy storage component to compensate for the variability, the cost of the whole thing is just ridiculous. wind energy is renewable, wind turbines are NOT! 2-solar ain't much better as a large majority of the panels are produced in china... where they mostly run coal power plants to power all factories. for solar panels to make sense environment-wise, you thus need to first "offset" the carbon footprint for its production, which can take from 10 to 20 years depending on the sun conditions on location as well as a proper maintenance of the panel (which needs to be very regularly cleaned to work as optimally as possible, as a mere thin dust cover can easily lower the panel energy production by up to 20%). finally, once the solar panels have gone through their life cycle (less than 30 years), most of them aren't recycled to produce new ones : solar energy is renewable, solar panels are NOT! the only actual renewable energy production methods shown in this video are geothermal and water dams. wind and solar, at this point in time, are but greenwashing marketing products.

[@lurpb]

You don't mention the huge amount of windtubine waste? There's basically no reuse in the turbine wings. They are buried and forgotten. And you don't mention any of the ideas of reuse of spent nuclear fuel. Here i'm thinking of the next generation nuclear plants that is being developed as we speak.

[@molnibalage83]

20:24 And what would be the "far more sustainable" options? If you think here solar or wind I have to laugh...

[@Alex-cw3rz]

Why?

[@piotrtrzcinski3878]

US is just a very rich third world country…

[@1sdani]

Also, it is nearly impossible for a modern nuclear reactor to melt down. Not only did Fukushima's reactor design predate many of the most important modern standards of safety, but Japan knew it was going to blow from before it was even built. The designs that were approved and the designs that was used for it are vastly different, leading to a multitude of reports that it was dangerously susceptible to a tsunami or other such natural disaster. Specifically, it was built too close to sea level, far closer than the designs specifically outlined. Sadly, the Fukushima Meltdown led to Japan closing down the vast majority of its reactors under pressure from citizens who were under the false assumption that such meltdowns could ever feasibly happen to a modern reactor. Moral of the story: Listen to safety inspectors, kids. P.S. Nuclear Reactors make a very very very tiny amount of waste compared to coal, oil, and gas reactors.