Is the Future of Renewable Energy Inevitable?

[@UndecidedMF]

What do you think? Where's the next be advancement in renewable technology going to be? And if you liked this video, be sure to check out, "Are Stirling Engines the Future of Renewable Energy Storage?" kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJaWd5ahhtR3rdU

[@dipladonic]

When using wind and solar energy, energy storage is the holy grail. Unfortunately, to say that we would need a lot of storage to make wind and solar viable (and non-parasitical on mainly fossil-fueled, conventional electricity generation) is an understatement. Grid-scale storage is an invention created through ignorance that has no plausible scientific resolution. Moreover, the second that you talk about dilute batteries or expensive, difficult to produce (in significant quantity), green hydrogen as a solution to such a monumental problem you lose all credibility.

[@kaminelson1277]

I think the next advancement will be people realising that nuclear energy is actually very safe and much better than other methods of clean energy.

[@kaminelson1277]

Also, for solar panels, making people recycle solar panels would be a large advancement. The net gain from recycling solar panels is negative, and is why only England recycles them.

[@dipladonic]

@@kaminelson1277 Safe, clean, energy-dense, and over time nuclear can be highly profitable. Unfortunately, society has demonised nuclear energy.

[@kaminelson1277]

@@dipladonic I agree, even my science teacher thinks they're really dangerous.

[@timdouglass9831]

I think that one of the things we have to do is avoid falling into the "single solution" thinking. We want the one answer to the energy question, but I think that reality is going to be that we will need to lean on a large number of technologies simultaneously in order to make it work. We've been badly spoiled by the whole "pump it out of the ground and burn it" economy and it's given us the idea that we will find some new technology that will just slide in to the place of oil and we can go on with everything else the same. Technological revolutions don't work that way. The development of a more environment-friendly energy economy is going to create all sorts of interesting societal adjustments as well as the the changes in technology and infrastructure.

[@dhairyaparikh3048]

That's true, even extracting Energy from fossil fuels is not that simple, How can solving such a complex problem be so simple

[@enemyofthestatewearein7945]

It's an easy trap because Solar and Wind have been so successful, so we need to be careful because that alone doesn't fix everything. But the rise of solar and wind from difficult beginnings shows that other difficult challenges can be solved too.

[@sethburgin5994]

@@enemyofthestatewearein7945 You obviously don't know shit about just how unsuccessfully these things were implemented in Germany. Why do you think Germany is almost totally dependent on Russia for natural gas right now? They bought into a scam, and it blew up right in their faces. You are also 10,000% clueless about the chemicals used in making solar cells too. One of them is 17,560% more damaging to the environment than CO2 is. We may as well put the CFCs back in aerosol cans too! I majored in semiconductor design. That means chemistry, physics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering,....... There were more illnesses reported than injuries in chip plants. Scary illnesses! Bones turning into jelly scary! Cancer scary! So, we most of the production to China. Out of sight, out of mind, unless you studied this for 8+ years.

[@jamestucker8088]

Great video as always. Maybe I heard that wrong but 95% efficiency for producing green hydrogen seems too good to be true.

[@laskieg]

@@rogerstarkey5390 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen

[@jsbrads1]

@@rogerstarkey5390 they mean hydrogen electrolyzed with power from green sources.

[@JP-zp5ic]

Solar cells don't need to become drastically more efficient. They are already one of the cheapest ways to get power in many parts of the world. (They also started with much better efficiency that the first steam engines, so that was a poor analogy). Storage on the other hand desperately needs to become more cost effective. Excellent work overall. Keep it up!

[@Rolfthewild]

Solar cells cannot work without silver which is completely non renewable. Drastically efficient you say?? Yeah as long as the silver holds up. But because silver is rare already your so called * efficient * way of energy is no more wasteful than fossil fuels.

[@jeffreymaclean83]

Before 9-11 we accepted that most wind turbines were 33% efficient, with climate change that drops to 12% . That’s why they need bigger and more wind turbines and the land mounted ones use huge amounts of steel and concrete for the foundations. If a turbine run 24 hrs a day every day is still won’t off set the energy and CO2 it took to make it . So it’s a total loss to the environment and to taxpayers .

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

4:02 Solar panels currently convert 15-22% of the light energy that falls on them. It is simply mathematically impossible to achieve 10 times greater efficiency like the steam engine.

[@ricksanchez6810]

@@rogerstarkey5390 The maximum theoretical limit for real world applications is 33.7% efficiency. That is under ideal conditions and the most expensive cells made with the best materials on the planet. Hate to break it to you, but we're damn near at the limit for cheap, durable, consumer grade SV cells.

[@michaelpapadopoulos6054]

@@ricksanchez6810 That is unless multi-junction panels become drastically cheaper. Small super efficient multi-junction panels combined with parabolic mirrors might be a viable alternative in a few years leading to the desired 40% efficiency in solar.

[@ultrastoat3298]

Good thing we don't need it to be 10x more efficient. If we never got a single percentage more in efficiency from now until the end of time, what we have today would still be good enough.

[@Real_MisterSir]

Yea that's why everything needs to be seen in context. The "first" steam engine prototype was simply so bad that immense increase in efficiency was inevitable no matter how you looked at it - but early solar cells were already quite efficient considering their inovative state. It will always be easier to quickly improve a very bad product, compared to perfecting a decent product. Solar in truth doesn't even need to increase its effectivity much, what we need is for the cost to go down, and the materials to be less labour intensive and less harmful, and more easy to recycle. These are the main metrics we should look at, when evaluating technological growth over time.

[@budders9958]

@@Real_MisterSir Not if you consider excessive land usage to be a problem.

[@garry8390]

Nuclear power emits fewer Co2 emissions at a much lower cost, does not use child slave labor or require mining on a mind blowing scale. It can provide industrial/residential heat and can be built far faster than reneawables. Reneawables have their benefits but nuclear is needed far more.

[@dinarazinaliyeva196]

I think renewables+hydrogen definitely do have their place in the future, but to replace the entirety of polluting fossil fuels, I think it cannot go without (safer) nuclear fission (and hopefully soon enough) fusion to get emissions down or close to zero. First to benefit will as always probably be the developed countries though.

[@davestagner]

I have a variety of gripes against nuclear, but one of the biggest is the plain fact that it’s NOT a solution for large parts of the world, because their economies (and politics) aren’t sufficiently advanced to actually support nuclear. How many years do you think it’ll be until Somalia is ready for a nuclear power plant? That’s a big problem. Solar and wind, on the other hand, are cheap and easy to implement at quite small scale, down to a single off-grid building.

[@graysonsmith7031]

A wind turbine with an operational lifespan of 20 years can pay for itself in 5-8 months, and at residential scales solar panels make way more sense in terms of ROI. That makes nearly all fossil fuel plants look like a terrible investment, peak demand is still an issue which is slowly being solved with batteries. But nuclear plants and hydroelectric plants can act as peaker plants until then.

[@AmazingStoryDewd]

Wind turbines are largely a dead end. Solar and wind will be part of our energy source but it's unlikely either will be efficient enough to replace fossil fuels. It's a pipe dream.

[@joan3338]

We will have to wait for new battery technology. Hydrogen could also be a solution but the cost is still way too high. I think oil will dominate for at least 10-15 years, knowing how profitable it is and how much role politics play in the industry.

[@erth2man]

The next big challenge will be to convince the population that has been mislead that modular nuclear energy is the answer to every problem involving so called renewable energy. No matter how efficient a solar panel may become in the future, that doesn't change the fact that there is still so very little energy per square meter of sunlight available.....even then, only during the day time.

[@JSM-bb80u]

Battery storage systems like sodium ion and iron air would be affordable and revolutionize grid storage. We should also invest in both large and small scale nuclear power plants too. We need every clean energy source to compete against fossil fuels.

[@ae1ae2]

I think a proper "efficiency" comparison would be resources required to each unit of energy put out, provided it is similar materials at each stage in terms of cost, availability, and environmental impact. For example, if I could take all the materials required to build a solar panel today 10 years ago and now produce two such solar panels, each with 50% more output than the original, that looks an awful lot like tripling efficiency.

[@MrJohanFrederik]

Very true! I also think there should be more focus on “extended EROEI” and how that is improving or can be improved. This recent 2020 paper suggests Renewables do not yet have a good EROEI (1,2 in Germany, which is dramatic) www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/12/3036 In 2017 there was a paper claiming EROEI was a lot better (about 8 for PV) www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516307066 I’m surprised by this. How can there be so much difference in estimate between papers? This should be a billion dollar question. Why are there apparently so few scientific papers on this topic? I could not find many.

[@MrJohndoe845]

The way to think about this is the physical "footprint" (ie km^2) per kWh. The footprint can be measured in land required for acquiring and mining/extracting the raw materials, as well as the required land in hauling and manufacturing the energy producing instruments (ie, wind mills, solar panels, and oil rigs) as well as the land needed to place such instruments. In addition, one should consider the amount of land needed to offset carbon emissions arrising from the consumption of that energy. If we were truly serious, we would not be directly interested in kWh, but in the tangible products of energy production -Things like transportation services measured in kg*km, illumination measured in lm, computation measured in Hz*Hr, and heat and cooling measured in , well kWh. And if we more serious, we would consider how much of each of these products we produce on a per capita basis and identify the maximum quality of life our planet can sustain for a given population size and then consider policies to reduce the long term growth curve of the human population.

[@davel759]

I just wanted to point out that DC power transmission is actually more efficient than AC over long distances, since there aren't induced currents in the surrounding environment due to the alternating magnetic field. The loss comes from the transformation of low to high voltage and back again, since, yes, low voltage DC (and AC as well) is inefficient over long distances. It's the inherent transformability of AC that makes for overall more efficient (and simpler) for long distance power distribution.

[@bknesheim]

ref: 8:10 How is this 95% efficency calculated: It is more than what is possible in teory and that is always a bad sign.

[@Asdayasman]

It is calculated to secure venture capital funding.

[@christianekhart4557]

59% is more realistic for conversation and transport of H2. When doing fuel cell that drops even more...

[@RechargeableLithium]

@@christianekhart4557 It's likely that only production was reported, not transport, and not the efficiency of how the H2's used. For example, in Germany's Energiewende/Third Industrial Revolution process, renewables are allowed to run without throttling and the energy in excess of grid needs is used to make hydrogen which is stored in the nation's natural gas grid. The gas grid is a 'battery' large enough to run the entire country for about 6 months. That H2/methane mix can generate electricity in fuel cells or thermal plants, it can run NG vehicles, and it can be used to provide industrial heat - each with different efficiencies.

[@europhil2000]

They indeed says 95% for the electrolyzer alone. 75% efficiency for overal conversion ( fair-economics.de/ove-petersen-gp-joule-im-interview-bei-faireconomics/ www.gp-joule.com/contact/press/article/details-news/electricity-to-hydrogen/ )

[@soulhunter0]

I've long been involved in the energy area, from student up to researcher and as it stands now, a good electric storage technology solution is THE factor holding back a more widespread use of renewables, even though they are continuously growing. Can't say that we should all place our eggs in the same basket but if/when the electrical storage crisis is overcome renewables that convert energy directly into electricity i.e. solar, wind will acquire an even greater significance.

[@mintheman7]

The key competitive advantage of renewables is the energy doesn’t have to be “generated” or burned like with fossil fuels, but collected and stored, most of the time locally. Their is no need for exploration, refining, transportation, etc. like with fossil fuels. Renewables are already cheaper in a lot of cases and will be even more so as technology advances.

[@Alrukitaf]

That’s Goodenough for me! Yeah, I said it!

[@soul0360]

Not Goodenough. Apparently he wasn't satisfied with lithium-ion, since continuing on to sodium.

[@bullithedjames937]

@Soul0 lithium ion is not good enough for me LiFePo4 you can't charge in the cold. So I'm still lead acid. I can charge those at negative fahrenheit temperatures.

[@williammeek4078]

@@bullithedjames937 if you keep your car plugged in overnight, the BMS for LiFePO4 will keep the battery above freezing and allow near normal charging. In all other respects, LiFePO4 outperforms lead acid.

[@bullithedjames937]

@@williammeek4078 I don't have a car in a pedal bicycle with trailer that has a baby solar set up on it.

[@williammeek4078]

@@bullithedjames937 a thermal blanket would be easy enough to set up.

[@Greenflashtech]

Thanks Matt, I think the hydrogen plant being 95% efficient must be impossible? Does it include compression for storage?

[@nordic5490]

Not to mention the typical 50% conversion efficiency when converting back to electricity.

[@pipertripp]

My impression was that the 95% refers to the electrolyzer alone.

[@makersmark5607]

It's not. They are probably throwing a number out that refers to something else and misleading people to think it applies to energy conversion.

[@europhil2000]

I can't imagine that that legit. Unfortunately very carelessly quoted number... They indeed says 95% for the electrolyzer alone. 75% efficiency for overal conversion ( fair-economics.de/ove-petersen-gp-joule-im-interview-bei-faireconomics/ www.gp-joule.com/contact/press/article/details-news/electricity-to-hydrogen/ )

[@ThePeriquito51]

also nuclear has an annual capacity of about 90%...solar 10-20% wind 20%.....intermitency is high

[@FarfettilLejl]

Fun fact, "hippo" in hippomobile comes from the Greek word ιππος which means horse. Hippopotamus is consist of two words: ιππος and ποταμος which means river so a hippopotamus is a river-horse :P

[@jamesmurphy2828]

Have to love Greek

[@russiannpcbot6408]

Hippos also run a lot faster than his suggested 8 mph.

[@mymenare]

...the Germans call a hippo a Flusspferd, river horse - go figure, another more fun factr

[@موسى_7]

In Arabic, we also say river horse: فرس النهر Faras al-nahr

[@tonyharford4625]

@@russiannpcbot6408 Hippopotamuses are adorably pudgy, strict herbivores and kill more humans than any other African animal. You cannot outrun them; they've been clocked at 30-40km/h (19-25mph). You cannot outswim them; on average, hippos can swim 8 km/h (5 mph).

[@JoaoFerreira-bo3cq]

The problem here is that we are running against the clock with a lot of catching-up to do in terms of reducing Greenhouse gas emissions and making Green Energy a true solution in terms of environmental impact. I personally think the pace is not fast enough. It is taking a long time from the achievements done in Universities around the world until they are massively adopted. So, perhaps a follow-up video on this one, on how to speed adoption?

[@garethbaus5471]

We finally have reached the point where solar and wind are profitable (with wind being one of the cheapest energy sources we have) so we are probably at the transition point where those 2 will grow very rapidly.

[@armadillito]

Yup, the biggest problem is not innovating to solve the problems in theory but policy making to get the solutions operational as soon as possible.

[@axiom1650]

There's a hard limit to solar energy, about 1 kW beams down per m2 in the best of circumstances, we can theoretically harvest 50-55% but anything past 30% will be cost inefficient for the foreseeable future. It's not a technology we can improve 10x since the laws of thermodynamics don't allow it.

[@ZTanMURReneRs]

Sure, but you're looking at the wrong numbers. The relevant spec is energy/cost which can certainly still improve that much

[@europhil2000]

Not sure where this 50-55% theoretical limit is coming from. Shockley and Queisser limit for a single bandgap is at 33%, for multiple layers things can go to 86% ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency#Thermodynamic_efficiency_limit_and_infinite-stack_limit ). Maximum achieved is 47% with three layers ( ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8231134 ) But I agree that "improving efficiency by a factor" is one of the worst ways to look at it... There is always an upper limit to this (which is 100%) so all this is, is telling you where you started...

[@axiom1650]

@@europhil2000 There's a difference between the absolute theoretical limit and practical theoretical limit. Like you state, the maximum achieved in a lab environment (no need to protect against elements etc) is 47%.

[@europhil2000]

@@axiom1650 I am not disagreeing that the practical limit will be less than the theoretical. And 30% also sounds pretty reasonable to me. Btw., as far as I remember that's where space applications are now at. But you do say the theoretical limit was 50-55%, so I was wondering where this numbers comes from.

[@axiom1650]

@@europhil2000 It depends on semantics I guess, if a value is theoretically doable but can never be achievable in the real world (ie. requires layered materials which are 100% transparent for wavelengths it cannot convert to electrical energy, cannot have any protection, must be kept at -200°C), it is not even a theoretical limit in my opinion, it's a fairytale limit. It looks like we'll do over 50% efficiency in the lab this decade, but it seems highly unlikely we'll do over 50% in mass production this century. My guess would be that we will asymptotically increase efficiency of mass produced panel to 50-55% at some point.

[@CompleteAnimation]

Now I'm going to start have nightmares of tarantula-sized hippos crawling over me.

[@UndecidedMF]

You're welcome.

[@adamackels73]

We all know, the renewable energy sector needs a lot of help when recycling the wind towers, or solar panels.. I'm 48 years old.. The thought of countries being energy independent is very encouraging.. Hydrogen, I don't know what to think of it, the oil companies need to go away. Great video Matt!

[@ThunderChasers]

Oil companies aren't going away. They aren't as bad as they're made out to be. Plus they provide income for tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people.

[@موسى_7]

@@ThunderChasers Oil companies have done lots of bad, and the military industry employs many people, and so do mafias.

[@fotoguru222]

@@ThunderChasers Yes, oil & coal companies aren't going away. They are needed for the chemicals and materials they mine. We just need to stop burning their valuable product. And 10's of millions will be employed in the transformation to renewable energy sources. Workers constructing offshore oil derricks for example will be re-employed building offshore wind turbine platforms.

[@ThunderChasers]

@@fotoguru222 you assume these people will want to make such a transition.

[@custommotor]

@@fotoguru222 the other question is when it comes to wind versus nuclear. How much more does it cost to maintain all of those wind turbines compared to one nuclear power plant. Because it takes hundreds of turbines for one nuke.

[@a5232106]

The key is keeping renewables doing something useful when there aren’t enough loads to power. Storage in flow batteries or hydrolysis seems like our best ideas now. I’ve also been thinking there could be quite a market in retro fitting ICEs for hydrogen or converting to EVs

[@موسى_7]

Flow battery, Na-ion, that's what I think.

[@iareid8255]

Drew when and where do renewables not have enough load? So much of the time their output is abysmally low.

[@RechargeableLithium]

@@iareid8255 The output is only 'abysmally low' when one looks at numbers from grid operators. The problem there is that wind and solar (and gas peaker plants) can be throttled, but nukes, oil, and coal cannot. Grid operators keep the nukes, coal, oil, and non-peaker gas running as efficiently as they can be (which isn't very, overall) and they throttle the renewables to maintain frequency and to match supply and demand - which has to be done in real time because we don't have any significant storage. In other parts of the world where storage is part of the mix (as well as on US microgrids and everyone that's living off-grid), the renewables can run flat out. In those cases, renewable output and efficiency exceed fossils and nukes.

[@stewartsayer7555]

@@RechargeableLithium nuke oil and coal can't be throttled? You have a fundamental misunderstanding if you believe this. In all of these cases the fuel is used to generate steam that then can be stored or used to drive the generator turbine. While all turbines have a speed range they can run efficiently and safely in. That range for these energy types is broad. Wind on the other hand has a very limited range based in the ability to turn the turbine blades to catch less wind. This range is small on a per turbine basis and once used further "throttling" of the farm requires shutting down individual turbines completely. Solar is either on or off. So "throttling" is only available by switching individual or bank groups of panels. In both cases wind and solar "throttling" wastes energy that cannot be recovered (not true for stored steam or unburnt fuel). So electricity market and grid dispatch solutions are currently designed around using as much wind and solar energy as is available and using fuel generators to maintain frequency and supply. With a large percentage of energy in hydro and fuel burners and a small percentage in wind and solar systems work and are stable. But as wind and solar displace coal and other fuel burners making up a larger percentage of the supply then systems will become less stable and require expensive interventions like massive battery banks and large inertia storage devices to replace the aspects of fuel burning generators that wind and solar can't supply. The small system I work in currently has 2200MW installed hydro and gas. It also has 450MW available input from a DC link and a further 450MW from wind. I'm unsure of the amount of dispersed solar (roof panels). Overnight in summer the supply from the DC and renewables can be 75% of the load. In this situation we require significant hydro on line as backup and inertia (wasting fuel but not in huge amounts) to maintain stability as small faults in the distribution network can and have caused the DC link to shut down.

[@RechargeableLithium]

@@stewartsayer7555 Throttling depends on the service the generator is providing, or the reason for needing to vary output. Remember that the current grid doesn't have storage, generated electrons must be matched by demand, and the frequency must be maintained. Nukes are normally run at steady output, for example, as the current grid is maintained using a 'baseload' plus rapidly variable generation (think gas peaker plants) to cover demand. Coal and most gas plants are also used for base load. In that paradigm, renewables are throttled or curtailed in order to make the best use of generation with fuel expenses - that increases power company profits. While you're technically correct that some throttling is available from all generators, that's not the way grids are normally managed. That's also why renewables don't look as good - it's because of the way they're used on our grid. I was stationed in Germany in the early 90s, and have been following their energy transition away from fossil fuel and nukes, and have been studying the three main plans being implemented today there and in other places. Renewables really shine - and significantly out perform thermal generation - when they're used on a renewable-centric grid with storage. Here's an example from Germany: They're using excess wind and solar to generate hydrogen. That hydrogen is stored in their national natural gas grid. Once the transition is complete (it's only about 40% today), they'll be able to power the entire country from just wind and solar, and the natural gas grid is a 'battery' that can provided all energy needs for the country - transport, heat, electricity, industry, the works - for at least 6 months with no generation. Your view of the way renewables are integrated into the US grid are not accurate, I'm afraid. Solar is not binary 'on or off'. My personal generation, for example, is run through a maximum power point tracker that maximizes harvest. It also throttles the panels from 100% to zero depending on the demands in the house and the demands of the battery. It is fundamentally incorrect to say that solar generation is either on or off. Instead of looking at what is currently done, I strongly recommend that you educate yourself on RMI's "Reinventing Fire" plan that's being implemented in the US, and the "Third Industrial Revolution" plan being implemented in Germany, the EU, China, and a couple of US cities. While the transition time is basically the worst of all worlds, once the system shifts to where renewables are primary and electric vehicles are able to support frequency and demand fluctuations via vehicle to grid (V2G) interfaces, you'll find that we won't need gas peakers, that the baseload paradigm isn't the only way, and that electricity is really inexpensive when there's no fuel expense.

[@paulogden7417]

Matt, I feel it would be more appropriate to say that Edison relied on low voltage transmission, which is inherently inefficient due to the required high currents. The fact that his systems used direct current is true but misleading. There is nothing inherently inefficient about direct current power transmission. Now that semiconductors can rectify high voltage DC into usable voltages, DC is more efficient than AC for long distance transmission because there are much lower field losses. I think that semiconductors will someday herald the age of end to end DC power. This power is more efficient and easier to create and use, with no rotating machinery or transformers required. Semiconductors also have the advantage in sensing, control and rapid shutdown, which reduces outages and makes electricity inherently safer.

[@thtiger1]

Small molten salt reactors can make Hydrogen by thermal cracking, much cheaper and more efficient than electrolyzers. And small ones reactors could be be used as independent energy sources for small towns, supplying twenty four energy with no need for any hands on controls for five to ten years, at which time the reactor can is switched out for another one and taken to back to the factory for reconditioning or re-cycling. None of that exists at the moment, but it could if we focused on this technology instead of intermittent renewables that we have pumped trillions of dollars into.

[@Nevrynal]

Good enough Matt. Good enough. In all seriousness, we appreciate your videos.

[@UndecidedMF]

Ha! Love the callback.

[@davidcadman4468]

If it's goodenough for Goodenough, it's goodenough for me!! :D

[@barry28907]

Nice video, but ... I think every mention of green hydrogen should at least note that it is FAR less efficient (by 3x or 4x) as an energy TRANSMISSION system, vs wire plus batteries, where the latter is practical. That last 'where' is important, however. Batteries are a long way from practical for aircraft and cargo ships, for example. But you mentioned trains as an application for green hydrogen. That makes little sense to me. Bring wired electricity to all mainline tracks and reap that 4x energy advantage, with minimal need for batteries.

[@Puchacz83]

Renewables are perfect tyhing to have, as a 40% in the total mix of the country. The rest should be a baseload, best if it's a non-emission type, like a modern atom plants. At least if You're a country with a lot of fog and snow in the winter.

[@jackfanning7952]

Nuclear has lots of emissions, even if you don't consider the constant leaks from reactors. Think of all the fossil fuel used to generate U-235. 1 million lbs. of 0.1% ore for 7 lbs. of U-235. Average reactor needs 10 tons of enriched U-235 per fuel cycle. Spent fuel is 1000 times more dangerous than the U-235 that went into it. Tailings still radioactive and acidic. How much fossil fuel is needed to make concrete and steel and build reactors? How much to dig very deep holes to store waste for at least 240,000 years, if they ever do that? How about to decommission leaky, rusty old reactors, if they ever do that? How about all the other toxic volatiles and chemicals used in mining and reactor maintenance? Lots of emissions; dirty, dirty emissions. Think of the effect on global warming of all the heat pollution from a reactor.

[@Puchacz83]

@@jackfanning7952 I'm aware of the problem, but still nuclear is less emitting technology than coal, and still energy storage is a thing of the distant future, and natural gas in many countires is hard to find, or hard to buy from safe supplier, or plainly even few times more expensive than nuclear power. Would You dare to depend e.g. on Russia to deliver natural gas to Your plants, to avoid nuclear plant on Your own territory and operated by You, plant that You may refuel with fuel imported from few different civilized countries once every few years? MAybe in the future we'll get fully renewalble, but in th transition period You still need to power Yourself for the next 20-40 years.

[@garethbaus5471]

A wind solar mix can definitely provide over 40% of the grids energy without effecting grid stability, wind alone provides 40% of my power already.

[@jackfanning7952]

@@Puchacz83 In the US, energy production has consolidated into just 30 monopolies from a total of almost 100 a decade ago. All of them are heavily invested in fossil fuels and nuclear, with just a few renewable plants for show for PR purposes. The U.S. has several hundred years of natural gas, but probably won't need it because of advances in renewables and battery technology. Renewables have reduced in cost 70-80% in the last decade and nuclear is up 35%. Tesla has gone up in value 500% in the last 5 years due to its battery technology and is now worth twice as much as General Motors and Ford combined, and will get bigger exponentially. It has inexpensive utility scale (PowerWall) storage units, household size (PowerPack) and energy saving (PowerVolt) units that are all selling like hot cakes! The PowerWalls will store utility power produced during non-peak hours for peak usage times. We don't need to construct new power plants to meet peak demand. With new technology in renewables, storage, and energy savings in building construction and electrical components, we can meet energy demand for decades to come. We don't need no steenkin' coal and nuclear! NY, NJ, RI, Mass,, Md. and Va. have signed contracts with European companies for 11,000 megawatts of offshore wind power by 2024 with another 20,000 megawatts by 2035. The European companies are excited about the prospects for offshore wind on the U.S. East Coast because of proximity to large markets, steady wind and a shallow seabed. The turbines will be far enough out to avoid complaints from shore dwellers and will not interfere with birds that migrate closer to shore. The Empire State Reality Trust (ESRT) has a contract with Green Mountain Energy to provide renewable energy to all of its vast real estate portfolio (10.1 million sq, ft.) in NY and CT., with a cost savings of $800,000 annually and 450 million lbs. of carbon removed from the atmosphere. The Empire State Building has been powered by renewables for 10 years. Google, Intel, Walmart and Microsoft are rapidly expanding their use of renewables in their businesses. The fossil fuel and nuclear utilities have done their best to lobby and bribe legislators to hold down renewables, but they are failing. You can't stop progress with cheaper, safer, reliable renewable energy. Cathy Woods, CEO of ARK and leading stock picker of 2020, predicts the utility market will have vast changes in the next 5 years with new technology and huge numbers of employees at traditional utilities will lose their jobs as a result. You better find a new horse to ride. That old nukie nag is headed to the glue factory.

[@Ilkanar]

Hydrogen is good only on paper if you ignore a lot of key problems with it. You add many steps to the proces that can be instead just plugin and charge up at home

[@adamdevereaux2459]

Agreed- for light duty transportation. I’m pretty antihydrogen vehicle when it comes to cars and other forms of personal transport. I think it’s been a pretty big boondoggle for the billions of dollars we taxpayers have spent on it. However, hydrogen for grid level long term storage is another matter. As well I think it is likely that there will be room for hydrogen and heavy duty vehicles and potentially air transportation. Also probably in heavy duty vehicles. You have a much lower quantity of (larger) catalysts required and they have a much higher duty cycle. Although batteries might take over heavy duty also before the need hydrogen infrastructure can be built out.

[@Ilkanar]

@@adamdevereaux2459 It will be good to have access to both technologies of corse, just hydrogen will be less worth it per kwh cus conversions. Dont get me wrong, i'm not saying we shloud abandon it completly. But pushing it for average consumer is plane stupid

[@FranFerioli]

Thanks for the good video. Regarding solar panels, efficiency increased only marginally, but costs plummeted at an incredible rate (google it). Since the "fuel" is free and abundant, investment costs are more important than efficiency. As a result of cost reduction, renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels (without subsidies) and for few years now attracted most of the investments.

[@berndblikslager9796]

Fundamental benefits of alternative energy is not restricting your sized eggs into one basket but discovery of the eggs along the hunt. Then implementing a conglomerate of eggs to fit the basket.

[@rklauco]

I think the worst thing is exactly what you mentioned - the believe we have some sort of status quo. I am already looking a lot into passive houses, geothermal energy and renewables for off-the-grid living, your videos only encourage my desire to live without substantial impact to my surroundings. Thanks!

[@bullithedjames937]

His videos make somethings seem possible as it shows how others are just impractical on the diy scale.

[@anthonydonoghue5667]

A Renewable energy future by its very definition is inevitable, whether we want it or not. It’s a matter of when, not if.

[@TheShootist]

hardly. neither fission nor fusion are renewable and part time power is no pathway to the 21st century.

[@briannicholls2628]

Let's get ready for the future and keep our minds open! I love that you being this great context to us! Thank you

[@coldwynn]

Our future, not as many of us, is dystopian. The powerful made money on us dying while saying we're in this together.

[@NathanDudani]

@@coldwynn I know right?

[@randybobandy9828]

@@coldwynn stfu commie.

[@brobrah4595]

imo its not panel efficiency but rather battery storage capacity that is the extremely major problem thats holding us back. we need solid state glass electrolyte batterys in every single family home at minimum.

[@wltrlg]

Excellent video again, especially since the historical perspective on technological development is not always taken into consideration.

[@UndecidedMF]

Thanks! It's important to have context.

[@jasenanderson8534]

Love the context comparisons to progression of technologies over time. My own thinking is that progression of battery tech innovation that vastly improves capacity and longevity will be the next driver, and solar tech a close second. The amount of energy stored and how long batteries last plus the number of cycles they can endure before they need recycling will change the game for virtually everything we use them for.

[@chrislee7817]

Nobody talks about tidal energy, vast amounts of untapped potential energy waiting to be tapped. However it's all too late now give it 100 years and it times up.

[@ultrastoat3298]

Nobody has figured out how to make moving parts under salt water reliable, cost effective, and with a low environmental impact.

[@chrislee7817]

@@ultrastoat3298 well it's about time some university funding was found to explore it.

[@garethbaus5471]

Not currently anything close to grid parity, once tidal energy reaches grid parity it would be an absolutely incredible energy source, we are simply better off implementing the energy sources that cost less than 6 cents per kwh now rather than waiting for cheap tidal energy to be developed.

[@chrislee7817]

@@garethbaus5471 what would those be 😀😱😥😂😔

[@UndecidedMF]

Lots of interest research and pilot projects, but I haven't seen any viable production level installations yet. Very cool idea/topic though.

[@PyjamasBeforeChrist]

Solar is already soooooooo cheap, they just need battery storage and related control electronics to drop in price and that's only a matter of time now. The size of the market is driving innovation and efficiently fast now.

[@glentaybow]

Great job at organizing and telling a story. Really enjoy the videos. The hippo on your shoulder was a bit creepy. Kudos for that as well!

[@UndecidedMF]

Thanks, Glenn ... yeah, the hippo is a little on the creepy side.

[@TimothyWhiteheadzm]

Re: Lithium. It is not particularly 'tricky to get'. In fact the mining processes are relatively straight forward. How environmentally friendly it is depends on the extraction method and location. All that really matters is the cost of extraction and since the current method is quite energy intensive the prices are what they are. Tesla hopes to use less energy intensive extraction processes to drive down the costs.

[@stephenjacks8196]

Rem, 40% of energy entering the US electrical grid is lost forever.

[@ShieTar_]

Bit of a side-note to the actual topic at hand, but the use of steam-power by the English was not actually the first industrial revolution. The first act happened in the Bengal (mostly todays Bangladesh), and was entirely powered by water-power. Only when the Bengali industrialised and cotton-based cloth-industry was beginning to drive the old-fashioned hand-crafting & wool industry in England into ruin, the English decided to sail to the Bengal, conquer the country, steal all the industrial looms and turn the new country into a cotton-exporting colony. After bringing the automatic looms to England and starting to copy the design, they quickly had to realise one problem though. The most powerfull river in the Bengal, the Brahmaputra, has an annual discharge of 19,800 m³/s. All the rivers in the UK together barely produce ~ 1500 m³/s. So they had absolutely no chance to copy the entire system utilised in the Bengal, and instead were forced to quickly search for an alternative source of power, which lead to the accelerated development of steam engines (which had technially been known since the greek antique, but largely considered to be pointless toys by those who knew about them). And we still keep on making this initial mistake to this day, by having a lot of energy-intensive processing plants located in the moderate climates in Europe and Northern America, instead of letting them take place near the Equator where more sun-shine, more heat, faster winds and bigger rivers would be available.

[@BOK-04]

I love that you looked backwards to Sterling engines for an application that could be used with current renewable energy‘s.

[@AnalystPrime]

@@gordybishop2375 You must have been in the wrong room, Stirling engines have far fewer parts than turbines and ICEs and make very little noise compared to them too. Here is a nice video about both the history of the engine and how it is planned to be used in energy storage: kzbin.info/www/bejne/poe9h6Gup8iiqcU

[@AnalystPrime]

@@gordybishop2375 "plans that never came" Are you referring to the parabolic mirror things from a decade ago? Those seem like another case where to scale up you need to go big, like offshore wind turbines, so it makes sense they would not be as cheap as PV panels. Also, a modern PV panel has no trouble with partial shade and indirect light while I haven't heard of a solar mirror that works without direct sunlight, so one might give less power in the afternoon but the other just stops if it gets cloudy. The projects Lindybeige mentioned are much more recent and seem to be doing well: kzbin.info/www/bejne/majVo4CLq96LoJY

[@AnalystPrime]

@@gordybishop2375 Any idea how much one of those costs and produces? They look like a good idea, but a lot of hardware to tap the energy in just a few square yards of light.

[@davidbarry6900]

I don't know what the next big renewable developments will be, but what we NEED is: - cheap, efficient, reliable, scaleable grid-scale electricity storage systems - better long-distance (1000km+) electrical energy transmission systems, for inter-state (and region-to-region) backup and supplementary power - more new transportable "embedded power" solutions, i.e. where things with a high input energy requirement can be manufactured in a location with cheap renewable energy, then shipped to other locations for use (e.g. aluminium "batteries"? Even green non-coal steel might count.)

[@treemaniscool]

I've played Frostpunk we definitely need coal reserves... Just in case

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

Nah, we need a reserve of grandmas we can shove into the boilers... just in case.

[@blakereid5785]

@@CarFreeSegnitz Grandmas “The coal of people” I always say.

[@pathfollower]

95% efficiency from hydrogen produced by electrolysis?!?! My understanding was it was a 65-70% efficient, with another 30% loss to compress or cryogenicly liquefy it after you made it. Boy was I off!!!

[@kellyaderwa1696]

We cannot forget that nuclear is still in the race.

[@jackfanning7952]

Absolutely not! Worst for economics, health and they still haven't disposed of a teaspoonful of the waste.

[@notnotalwen4891]

@@jackfanning7952 false. By economy nuclear is way way way more cheaper than renewable,fossils,etc. In terms of health fossils,coals,renewables (solar,wind,water)has killed more humans than nuclear. In terms of efficiency and mass to energy conversion nuclear is better.

[@notnotalwen4891]

@@jackfanning7952 also the waste products are safely stored deep in earth also we are in currently researching ways to use the waste of nuclear power plant (salt thorium reactors). In short nuclear ftw

[@jackfanning7952]

@@notnotalwen4891 Tell the big lies long enough and maybe someone will believe you, instead of their lying eyes. Maybe they won't see the greatest business failure in human history - nuclear power. But the big financiers like Lazard and Wall StreeT won't touch investing in nuclear with a ten foot pole. They will let the existing ones limp along til they die from high maintenance costs and cut their losses. Nuclear's only hope for a brief future is to bribe despots into destroying their own countries' economies in order to drift away into exile with a golden parachute. The rest of the world will have to clean up the mess, as usual.

[@notnotalwen4891]

@@jackfanning7952 kzbin.info/www/bejne/on2ZpnVnr55onaM just watch this

[@navarro152]

Great video Matt, I was forgetting hydrogen as a energy source to store electricity. Normally I think on water reservoirs (dams) to store electricity. The extra electricity from solar and wind use it to pump the water up the reservoir, but also to create hydrogen to use it in the night.

[@Aerostealth]

I wish you knew what you were talking about.

[@MrCaptainSquibbles]

Loved this video, if you would like to support renewable energy without installing solar panels, call your utility company. Many electricity providers offer a renewable option to match your electricity with renewables and make your home carbon neutral!

[@kentw.england2305]

"Yes", Tony Seba.

[@chrisheath2637]

Its rarely pointed out that much of the existing Electric Generation existing today is subsidised. Legacy (polluting) companies are in trouble already (financially). They will very likely claim more subsidies, even as they are out-competed by renewables. Once Big Storage kicks in, with highly computerised control, existing facilities have no chance on a level playing field. The Hornsdale project created millions for the operator - an unexpected bonus of electricity arbitrage - a little known aspect to Tesla's control software. (Tony Seba's books for in depth analysis.)

[@ThreeSixFour]

hydrogen fuel cells require precious metals and batteries as well.

[@racewiththefalcons1]

The short answer is 'yes'. The long answer is also 'yes'.

[@simmonslucas]

I would like to point out that just because the recycling technology exists doesn't mean it is accessible. A huge part of closed loop recycling systems, the logistics matter as much or matter even more.

[@raykent3211]

True. Since my local authority went over to accepting any plastic (unclean) food packaging I'm sure it's all being incinerated. Way too expensive to clean it, sterilise and sort it by polymer type. Even with products claiming to be recycled they're using about 10 to 15% of carefully chosen polymer. More becomes degraded. Fairy stories. Yeah you can easily mince up batteries, but it takes a lot of energy to separate the elements for re-use. Most lithium cells sent for recycling go into land fill.

[@dembajalloh104]

Renewable energy: I am... INEVITABLE!!! Fossil fuels: And I am... ok, you're right I'm screwed

[@notnotalwen4891]

Meanwhile Nuclear: I am Iron man

[@DemoBytom]

And then there's Poland, which decided to host the freakin' Climte Summit in the coal mining region capitol, greet everyone with traditional coal miners orchestra and then proclaim that coal will still be our driving force for electricity production for years to come. "We have supply for the next 200 years!" :-|

[@nullbeyondo]

Yes. It is 100% inevitable. The entire world will have to embrace renewables whether they like it or not cause we'll run out of fossil fuels and oil eventually and inevitably. Details for nerds like me: There are like 1.47 trillion barrels of oil in the world left, we use like 35.4 billion per year. Yes, you read that right. Assuming our consumption rate of oil stays the same or doesn't decrease, we've got only about 42 years *at most* before renewables take over 50% of the world's energy demand. Aside from the facts above, my opinion is that it'd happen sooner.

[@kentw.england2305]

Could you do a video on green ammonia for fuel cell storage?

[@TheShootist]

it takes petroleum to make ammonia. carry on.

[@TryAdaptLearn]

Good question as a title. Since it has been and currently is in use, the question of: "is the future of renewable energy is inevitable?" may already be answered, at least as much as the statement that: "change is inevitable". As inevitable as energy consumption is, so too shall be the progress toward energy efficiency, energy transfer and energy storage. If some of that progress is currently coming from renewables then why wouldn't it be inevitable.

[@seasong7655]

Solar energy is now the cheapest energy source in history. It's inevitable.

[@currenciacurrencia1860]

That is total BS. stop making stuff up to suit yourself and your ignorance.

[@seasong7655]

@@currenciacurrencia1860 www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+cheapest+energy+source+in+history It only takes a second to look up. Who is the ignorant now?

[@UndecidedMF]

And the costs are still dropping.

[@ecospider5]

DC is not bad for power transmission. Low voltage is bad for power transmission. Until recently it was hard to get DC to change voltages. But now that we can make high voltage DC it is even better for transmission than AC in certain situations.

[@LoganMaclaren]

"Pick-up steam", "Goodenough for me"... dude, you are on a roll!

[@porcorosso4330]

3:40 "Photovoltaic...speed of light"

[@Robert_McGarry_Poems]

I almost didn't catch the steam pun, even after you brought attention to it. What an old school pun, lovely!

[@KevinLyda]

Hydrogen just isn't going to happen. Maybe for shipping, but that's it. It's insanely inefficient.

[@jonusjonus9271]

"What do you think? Where's the next be advancement in renewable technology going to be?" its not an advancement, its already here...Gen 4+ Nuclear. Can we quite with the whack a mole problem solving already?

[@crhu319]

It's worthless. Cost per watt off the scale. Always better to get rid of watts than build nukes.

[@jonusjonus9271]

@@crhu319 You are clearly ignorant to the real the real math. Solar and wind units must be replaced every 20 to 30 years, doesn't matter how well you build them. Even conventional nuclear plants can run indefinitely with proper maintenance. Reduce government red tape and while the upfront cost it high, it doesn't take long for that cost to be outweighed by longevity. It's not even close. Reduce watts you say? Thats easy to say if you live in a developed nation but go on...tell that to someone in a third world country. Tell them they shouldn't have air conditioning. Your point is illconsevied.

[@enyotheios2613]

Renewables is just common sense. There doesn't need to be any debate over it. We could have done it decades ago. Any "Prepper" would be wise to have renewable water and electric sources for their off grid living, because it is safer and more reliable for them.

[@currenciacurrencia1860]

There is no common sense.

[@currenciacurrencia1860]

Yes, it is best for every one to live on their own in a tent along the river bank.

[@enyotheios2613]

@@currenciacurrencia1860 You can sustain large cities with renewables. You can grow food for people vertically with less resources, and it be healthier and fresher because it doesn't need to be GMO or use fertilizers and pesticides, nor have to be transported as far. We don't need to invent new technology to achieve any of it. The paranoid preppers and hippy tent dwellers are just the ones who could use it to achieve their wanted lifestyle the easiest and in the shortest term. Honestly, I don't care about climate change. Humans can move. I just don't like drinking poisoned water, eating poisoned food, or breathing poisoned air because a monopoly wants to make money and fools half of the population into voting against their own self interest.

[@sandpiperbf9767]

Are you the son or brother of the "just have a think" guy?

[@Robert_McGarry_Poems]

YT brothers.

[@ThomasBomb45]

They're fellow comrades

[@موسى_7]

How much younger is Matt than Dave?

[@nacoran]

I think a better way to describe the improvements in solar isn't to talk about efficiency. Mathematically solar panels will never be 10x more efficient than they are today, since that would be well more than 100% (although you could do space based solar and get more light hitting your pannel). Cost per watt is a much better comparison. Making solar panels 1/10th their current cost would actually be much more important than even doubling their efficiency for most uses since you could just throw them on every rooftop.

[@abrin5508]

I have a PhD in renewables so know the numbers for decades. I think it will ultimately win but for know its actually a con.

[@mikeycbd]

Everyone is talking about renewable energy but nothing is ever mentioned about the pollution shipping is causing to our planet. It's relative due to the emissions they kick out into the atmosphere.

[@morrisonmeister]

Can you cover Bill Gates upcoming new version of a Nuclear Power Station...that looks interesting.

[@NathanDudani]

OoH bIlL GaTeS

[@UndecidedMF]

I sort of touched on that in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZPVhWajbZ6Maa8

[@jasonbroom7147]

I do think a more efficient hydrogen storage solution would be the best path forward, based on what is available today. As much as I like lithium-iron batteries, I think they are a bridge to future, "refillable" solutions.

[@MetallicalCatastroph]

1 word: fusion. Nuclear is the future.... again, I guess.

[@ricksanchez6810]

Totally agree. Fission is the answer for today. Fusion will set humanity free in the future. The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power.

[@jackfanning7952]

Stop dreaming, nukie. Your dreams have been our nightmares. Someday over the rainbow, in the sweet by and by, keep the money coming, just around the corner, you'll see, who cares if we never throw away any waste, too cheap to meter, can't wait, we will get it right someday, don't pay any attention to our dismal past, just a minor malfunction, we didn't need that $500 billion for that meltdown anyway, or those other ones, or those nuclear exclusion zones, or the Pacific Ocean, don't pay any attention to all that cancer, a few tumors are good for you, or those mutations, we'll get it right this time, don't worry, be happy.

[@MetallicalCatastroph]

@@jackfanning7952 You sound like a very VERY sad man. Hopefully your fearmongering will someday give way to actual research on the topic at hand.

[@kushyadav8269]

No

[@jackfanning7952]

@@MetallicalCatastroph Learn to code, nukie. Cathy Woods, CEO of ARK and best stock picker in 2020 says the energy utilities will undergo a vast change in the next 5 years with new technology putting a lot of employees of the old fossil fuel and nuclear utilities out of a job. Renewables is the future; nuclear is an extinct dinosaur in its death throes. I am enjoying it immensely.

[@terryrogers8965]

Yes, the times they are a changin'. In fact the rapid pace in some cases at least may slow the adoption. Do I get that solar roof, BEV or Powerwall now or wait a year or two when the range, efficiency is better? I remember buying an Apple IIC and 6 months later they came out with the IIG, I was torqued. IMHO we need very large government subsidies to get this snowball rolling down the hill and quell the anxiety of being an early adopter.

[@navithefairy]

You are way too optimistic about Hydrogen and left out key elements which make it way less suitable. Especially for use in cars. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a source of energy. And current electrolyzers are not 95% efficient, more like 80%. But the bad part is, that's just step 1, after creating the hydrogen, you need to store (compress to extreme pressure) or liquify it, transport it, put it in a car, run a fuel cell to create electricity for a battery and drive on it. Every step you have losses. End result: only 25-30% efficient. Compare this to directly charging a battery using the energy you already had at the start: 90% efficient. This is why, especially for EV's, batteries are the way to go. Short Elon clip on this very subject: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r3ezn4djeah1jNU ELI5: When you have 10 kWh from your solarpanels: - If you just charge a battery directly and drive on it you end up with around 9 Kwh to drive on, let's say 45 kilometres (28 miles) - If you go the Hydrogen route you end up with around 3 kWh to drive on, let's say 15 kilometres (9.3 miles) (Assuming 200 Wh/km)

[@Real_MisterSir]

Yea the entire point of Hydrogen EVs is still far off in regards to replace any other form of energy source (which as you say, Hydrogen isn't). I wonder how efficient it would be to make use of the momentary energy produced by solar and wind - by using it immediately to aid in the creation of Hydrogen at a powerplant, which can then be stored and used on a more linear scale, as a way of containing the energy long-term so we aren't as dependent on how the weather is acting.

[@navithefairy]

@@Real_MisterSir Well you would have the same issues. You would need enormous tanks under pressure to store large quantities. And then you will eventually need to convert back. This way you are simply using hydrogen as a terribly inefficient battery. For storage on land, it simply makes no sense, just use batteries which will improve the coming years. Maybe for large tanker ships or airplanes hydrogen could have some use, not sure.

[@Real_MisterSir]

@@navithefairy The idea is that you'd cut out a lot of the steps you mention, such as transportation and handling, secure use in vehicles, etc. With this concept you could produce and immediately store the hydrogen at the same facility and never have any attached supply chain. The issue with current batteries is creating large enough quantities to efficiently store energy over time, as well as taking into consideration battery degradation and potential future replacement needs etc. I mean in the end, all of these technologies are improving every year, so it's not like one needs to replace or outdo the other.

[@JohnBoen]

It's not just the panels and batteries that are getting cheaper. I'm going with "Inverter technology". It is showing the same level of advancements as the others, and the price is finally low enough to do some interesting things. At some point the cost of inverters will be comparable to the cost of transformers and we will begin using extremely high voltage DC power lines that lose much less power. I see lots of slow capture electronics in our future, made possible by improvements in electronics efficiency and price. * Commoditized Stirling engines that use excess heat to generate electricity. * Roadway turbines that capture the wind produced by automobiles and busses. * Gravity based storage systems - carts on tracks, big weights lowered into holes... (I think all of these have been mentioned on this channel) A lot of things that just are not practical now will need to be revisited. Time to start looking at 100 year old patents.

[@MERRYPAN]

If the Oil Industry got serious about GeoThermal-could be a game changer!

[@harsimranbansal5355]

If the oil industry simply got serious about not ruining our future, we’d be so much better off!

[@chrisnegele6875]

I think of green hydrogen as a kind of battery for a renewable grid. I tell younger people energy storage is where to keep your eyes open for investing their money for retirement.

[@armadillito]

As someone considering working in the sector, I wouldn't bet my life savings on it but I am also confident that it will see massive growth this century.

[@karlInSanDiego]

Green hydrogen is less than 50% efficient as a storage medium. So yeah it's viable, barely, but a society built on it would need platinum or palladium for every fuel cell node. Bad scaling on that solution.

[@nullinterface2077]

Hydrogen - coupled with a hydrogen fuel cell - makes for an inefficient, complex, expensive battery. Short of the unlikely confluence of A) massive energy production B) near a convenient point of demand for hydrogen C) where there is no good way to export electricity to the grid, and D) the costs associated with hydrogen production and consumption drop significantly ... I doubt we're going to be using bespoke alternative energy production piped directly into cracking water into hydrogen. It's both more energy- and cost-efficient to steam reform hydrocarbons to extract hydrogen - something the petroleum producers can do at scale and largely with existing plant with the attendant CO2 release into the atmosphere.

[@CaedenV]

I mean... we have seen a 2x efficiency improvment in solar, but we are already bumping up against theoretical limits of efficiency already, and it is already as efficient (if nto more efficient) than the internal combustion engine (~30%). Granted, more research is needed to get these hyper efficient panels to get form the lab to the mass market, but the research is done, we are near peak efficiency, and the research now is focusing on bringing down prices and extending lifespan.

[@geneatgeolscedu6067]

5:02 - Why stop at lithium? There is 2-3 times the amount of copper in EVs compared to conventional vehicles and a kilograms of other metals (including Li) that are required in EVs and not present in conventional vehicles in significant quantities. Are mining and rising metal prices going to be a drag on renewable adoption? Mark Mills (Manhattan Institute) is telling is anyone who will listen that mining and metal supplies will not keep pace with the massive demand that will be created by renewable energy systems. His arguments seem compelling. It would be great to hear your comments on the questions Mills raises. Thanks also for all of you great work.

[@Lord.Kiltridge]

I think the key to renewables is bringing the cost of solar down to the point where everyone everywhere can cover their roofs at a very low cost. Improving efficiency can come second and will have to be paired with vastly improved power storage tech and availability. Yes, we really can all have power walls in our homes if the price comes down enough. Even apartment buildings can swap out their emergency generators for battery banks.

[@yosefstanton5470]

This is just about the challenges of some future energy technologies, not about whether they’re inevitable or not. What might realistically happen otherwise?

[@grahamoldfield3474]

I think its an over simplification comparing the development of steam engines over 100 years to get 10% efficiency from 1% . Solar in a lab with 47 % efficiency means at best you can only double it and thats it . The real driving force in Alternative unpredictable intermintant energy is storage not small battery farms at huge cost but cheap multi day city size storage . Ultra high voltage DC transmission so areas experiencing low power generation conditions can obtain electricity from 1000s of Kilometres away . Not all alternative energy is suitable to every place . its what works in the particular area . We have seen too many wind farms built in ares that are not constant high wind area , they were built because of Government subsidies . May be if there was less subsidies there would be better economic positioning . Remember a subsidy is a tax that generally affects the poor more than the rich .

[@georgepapaioannou5115]

Internal combustion has advanced far more than 10X. Especially in emissions reduction. And renewable energy is restricted by physics, and is close to the limit today. Don't expect much more improvement.

[@gordonbos5447]

2:58 not true. DC current in fact experiences less loss than AC current. The advantage of AC power however is that you can very easy and practically loss-free do a voltage conversion, causing current to be divided by the same factor as voltage is multiplied and resulting in less loss of power on main lines that typically run 300kV. On really long uninterrupted power lines like the NorNed line (360 miles) this advantage seizes to exist and this power line therefore does in fact transfer DC power.

[@EdmundKelly]

The central problem with wind and solar is intermittency. While the cost of generation for both has fallen significantly, the price of electricity in markets like Germany and California and the US as a whole has risen directly in step with the reduced capacity factor as renewables were added. No foreseeable tech improvement can cover the system costs of dealing with intermittency.

[@groblerful]

Ignors the obvious nuclear power.

[@dig1035]

How long until solar panels are obsolete? In the 5 years I've been looking watts have quadrupled!

[@thebonebox488]

Fuel cells have been a source of fascination for me for around 20 years. I'm fortunate to live near the NREL center in CO, so I can visit and look at these emerging technologies in action. Domestic home use seems the most beneficial application of fuel cell technology, as it produces three things useful in the home environment: Electricity, heat and clean water. The infrastructure challenges of getting hydrogen to every house are enormous, but maybe one day, the technology for producing hydrogen from water can be downsized and available for individual home use. Early computers took up entire warehouses and now they fit in our back pockets. It could happen.

[@krisvandermeulen253]

Power generation with kites would be a solution for certain applications. Much less difficult/restricting materials needed, less space needed and a much less intermittent power generation. Makaki in the US and Airborne Wind Energy in Europe could make an real impact for sustainable green energy.

[@dave8059]

I've always wondered why we don't consider the energy at the earth's core as a possible source to power everything we need on the surface.

[@J.Bunny13]

Its really deep down, man.

[@DrJohnnyJ]

If I understand correctly, you say that the efficiency of solar panels has improved 2X in 60 years. More like 3.5x. The first solar panels were 6% efficient vs. 22% for home use today. Cost efficiency has improved much more.

[@kevinbrooks9266]

Hi Matt, great video. I really enjoy your work. A frequently overlooked resource, geothermal energy and in particular, enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), is an emerging renewable energy source that should play a larger role in increasing the adoption of renewable energy. Some benefits to geothermal energy include, high efficiency and baseload energy generation which integrates perfectly with our current grid. The western United States has a high geothermal heat index that can be tapped once EGS technologies and drilling techniques can be perfected and made cost effective. The U.S. Department of Energy's FORGE Initiative is currently conducting research in Utah to close these gaps in developing EGS.

[@ahmeds4]

You cannot call it "A lie!" - it might be a long shot, but it's never a lie.

[@rumbleshakes]

Speaking of renewable energy you should do a video on the radioactive diamond battery using nuclear waste as it's fuel. It's like double renewable energy: nuclear and diamond batteries.

[@wcdeich4]

It is not inevitable! If people don't put time & research into it, it definitely will not happen. The question is will it happen in time to prevent worse global warming?

[@ptpasta]

The safest, easiest to handle energy storage is in the grid and the fuels market. Liquid fuels already have a distribution and market. Handling methane, propane and butane as well as heavier liquids; gasoline, kerosene, diesel and fuel oil are well understood. Any source of energy can produce clean conventional synthetic fuels and we have a wonderful variety of engines to use them in.

[@Tore_Lund]

The problem with liquid fuels, is that they still produce NOx when burned in an engine. So the problems with city air pollution is not mediated by just making CO2 neutral fuels.

[@010falcon]

3:00 Direct current is better for long distance power transmission, but why do we use AC you may ask. Well, making a higher voiltage out of a couple of volts is hard (you want a high voltage so the current is lower) Why is AC worse, well you have a loss with parallel capacitances to ground (meaning you lose power because of AC over capacitors, that could be the insulation that acts like one or even the air!) For use underwater you have to use DC, because the parallel capacity is so big, that you lose way to much power. SOOOO DC FOR THE WIN.

[@kennethsalyers3809]

wind power with no blades cut back with the problem with birds/noise smaller so it can be used at the home .