The Formula That Will Determine Our Energy Future | Answers With Joe

Get 20% of a premium subscription to Brilliant when you're one of the first 200 people to sign up at www.brilliant.org/answerswithjoe
We all want cleaner, more renewable energy. But when it comes down to it, the energy of the future is going to be the cheapest energy. So in this video we compare energy production by the Levelized Cost of Energy, or LCOE - the formula that will determine our energy future.
Some of the main sources for this video include:
www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/...
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/fil...
openei.org/apps/TCDB/#blank
Want to support the channel? Here's how:
Patreon: / answerswithjoe
Channel Memberships: / @joescott
T-Shirts & Merch: www.answerswithjoe.com/store
Join me on the Our Ludicrous Future Podcast:
/ @ourludicrousfuture
Interested in getting a Tesla? Use my referral link and get discounts and perks:
ts.la/joe74700
Follow me at all my places!
Instagram: / answerswithjoe
Snapchat: / answerswithjoe
Facebook: / answerswithjoe
Twitter: / answerswithjoe
LINKS LINKS LINKS:
A good rundown of LCOE: • Levelized Cost of Elec...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveliz...
www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/det...
www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
Matt Farrell on wind energy: • The truth about wind t...
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75...
www.sciencedirect.com/topics/...
www.smu.edu/-/media/Site/Dedm...
www.iea.org/reports/ocean-power

[@carlsagan2371]

The brutally candid nature of this channel makes it really worth watching.

[@dj9900]

Yeah, cuz diamond nano batteries are so safe right? They are possibly the worst hair braided idea that has come up in quite a long time.

[@yourt00bz]

Yeah the way he parrots a technocratic neofeudalism agenda sure sounds that way. I’m neutral I don’t care but this agenda started around 250 years ago in English aristocracy so maybe it’s not gonna be awesome

[@donaldespeut2042]

Why? It solves nothing. A complete waste of time.

[@CatOcatastrophe]

@@donaldespeut2042 yes, a NUKEULAR waste if time. ✔

[@Cman04092]

Yeah, I enjoyed it and how blunt and straight with us he is. I feel like the people who are complaining are just negative loudmouths who didn't actually pay attention, and would have no existence if they couldn't be angry and petty on the internet lol. Best to just ignore that lot, because that mentality accomplishes nothing.

[@thebonesaw..4634]

What about Squirrel in a Hamster Wheel technology? Low start up costs, they work cheap... plus, you get to make friends with squirrels.

[@jl.7739]

Hmmmm but what about the maintenance? Food and water? Also the waste could be a problem once you have an army of squirrels. I say we should first research genetically modified supersquirrels on steroids before we can actually tell if this tech is feasible.

[@davidelliott5843]

Have you seen the cost of hamster food?

[@KillaBitz]

The comity for the equal opportunities for all rodents has entered chat......

[@michaelnord9081]

Horses turning wheels is literally what we used for 10,000+ years.

[@wadeguidry6675]

Electric or hybrid squirrels?

[@currymobile]

I appreciate your honesty about these topics. I especially appreciate your mention of SMR reactors. I have studied 4th gen nuclear as an electrical engineer and have come to the conclusion that nuclear could halt climate change far more quickly than the rest. Its biggest downside: people fear it. The new reactors that are in various stages of approval by the NRC are orders of magnitude safer than the reactors that have had accidents in the past. Even the nuclear waste can be reprocessed like it is in France. In fact France is a great case study. Extremely clean energy mix because of nuclear power. If we are serious about solving climate change, dispatchable, safe, clean, scalable nuclear is ready to help right now.

[@Gryffon3]

Exactly, I am flabbergasted at his conclusion that coal is here to stay because it's cheaper when his own numbers show nuclear at a similar coast and obviously much less polluting. Uneducated masses who want to get green energy but have no idea of how any of it works are pushing governments away from nuclear as they did in Germany, and I'm afraid of it happening soon in France too.

[@enricopravato6677]

i agree with you, right now it's the only source of energy that could replace coal, but i would't describe is as clean, just because of the big amount of nuclear waste that it produce, even if some of it is reprocessed there will always be a big amount of nuclear waste, that doesent go anyway, and we dont know how to deal with it (buring it is just leaving the problem to somebody else, because accident can happen and you never know when you are talking about thousand of years) i really hope that we will get to usable nuclear fusion really soon, that would really be a huge game changer

[@richardbaird1452]

@@enricopravato6677 My understanding is the new 4th gen plants consume all the actinides (vast majority of long lived wastes) when paired with recycling and multiple times through the reactor, so nearly all of the end waste stream is safely disposable after only a few hundred years. Given all the used fuel we've already produced and that the only known way to reduce it to reasonably safe levels is in 4th gen reactors, I think it would be immoral not to build at least some of those plants if for no other reason than to eliminate the long term threat of existing spent fuel...plus we don't need to mine fresh uranium (or thorium for that matter) to fuel them. Of course the power generated is essentially free if the primary goal is truly safe disposal of spent LWR fuel. For the fusion path, have a look at MIT Sparc if you haven't already...they could have a working reactor relatively quickly.

[@glennalberta]

@@enricopravato6677 I'm not sure what you mean by a big amount of nuclear waste. Physically, it is barrels of material stored on site ( in the U.S.) So physically its not a large amount, especially when compared to ash heaps from coal plants, or to comming piles worn out solar panels and wind generators. If you are speaking about radioactivity, short lived radiation is far more hazardous that long lived due to the intensity and types of radiation. Onsite storage is a "waiting game" until the shortlived particles are transmuted into less dangerous stuff.

[@enricopravato6677]

@@glennalberta yes, i'm talking about the phisical nuclear waste stored in the barrels, but it's not that little, not only because we cant dispose of it, while eveey other waste is somehow disposable or anyway less dangerous to stock. while nuclear waste even if you dont produce that much of it (which i doubt, but i didnt find any decent sources online in a quick research) is going to stay there quite a long time. an finally nuclear waste is not only due to the exausted fissile materials, but for example every time that you want to disable an old nuclear plant the majority of it needs to be disposed as nuclear waste. having said so, i want to repeat that i am 100% pro nuclear, i was just pointing out some of it's problems, and i think that we shouldn't be happy of what we have right now, the next generation of power plants looks good even tho we cant phisically build them rn and nuclear fusion would be a great step forward

[@johnnyregs2378]

My eng comp professor said during lecture tonight: "Do the research first, then decide what argument you want to make."

[@palladin9479]

Do all the research you want as long as you arrive at the certifiably correct conclusion. If for some reason you think otherwise, then something must be wrong with you because we already know what the right answer is. /sarc

[@mauricioweber8879]

You might be spinning your wheels forever if you stick to that 100p

[@johnnyregs2378]

@@mauricioweber8879 I think you missed the point

[@samljer]

@@mauricioweber8879 /r/Whoosh

[@395leandro]

Well... most ethical epistemological processes start with a hypothesis (what you believe to be true) and a thesis (what turned out to be true according your research and studies, based on evidence and rationality). This process is usually summarized in the introductory points of a research paper, where the author presents his thesis sometimes aligned to his initial thoughts in comparison to his conclusion that will appear again in greater detail later in the paper and backed with ample evidence. Sometimes, however, it happens as you stated where a researcher comes upon some sort of discovery first and then use it to write a paper. There are multiple ways to approach the scientific method and, as long as it follow its ethicality, it will be proper science (whether it's later disproved or not) and it will be useful for the scientific community. Researching what has already been researched before is always good as it can provide further confirmation to a thesis, evidences against it or even disprove it entirely. As long as you avoid your own biases and agendas it will be okay. One of the biggest scientific sins is to consider data that corroborates to your hypothesis and ignore the data that disproves it. Joe wanted to find data that proved the economical benefits of renewable energy over traditional fossil fuels and that was not necessarily what he found, although the future looks promising for these new technologies.

[@LexVocoder]

I appreciate Joe's honesty about his difficulties in making this video. Let the math speak for itself.

[@christopherhamilton5557]

Agreed! Well done Joe!

[@paulvale2985]

A. H. I agree too. Except er... *Maths. lol.

[@connorhughe636323dd]

It's maths , short for mathematics I assume your American

[@jonathanozik5442]

"It's our language. You ruined it." Edit: fixed spelling. Thank You.

[@paulvale2985]

@@jonathanozik5442 If you meant to say "our" language then I suggest you may like to take a leaf out of Joe's book and do some research on the origins of the ENGLISH language (subtle clue in the name there!)

[@estudiordl]

Nuclear diamond batteries: now that I want to hear more. And small reactors too. 😀

[@NorthgateLP]

I think nuclear in general has a lot more possibilities that people actually realize. Like Joe said, the vast majority of nuclear plants are extremly outdated. There are quite safe options like Thorium reactors and even the waste products can be used for other stuff. You can for example transmute a large chunk of long lived fission products which creates additional energy. And overall it's by far the safest and cleanest form of energy production even taking Chernobyl and Fukushima into account.

[@acb_gamez]

@@NorthgateLP Nuclear is another amazing technology that won't be successful because of the idiocy of public opinion/understanding, just Like GMOs.

[@ioresult]

Seeker has the answer: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJuaq2ute6yteqc

[@matchrocket1702]

@@ioresult Thanks for that link. I subscribe to that channel but for some reason I didn't see that one.

[@simoncavill]

@@acb_gamez - It currently takes decades to plan and build a nuclear power station at a cost of 10's of $Billions. And there is still no country in the world that has a solution to safely, and permanently store/dispose of the waste and old bits of power station etc.

[@michaltreder]

Firstly, great video comparison of each technology side by side. I think the important factor to mention in the solar development would be the scale and impact of decentralization of the energy production where individual homes become energy producers and in some cases even fully self reliant if equipped in home energy storage. There is a huge potential for this especially in US. Such energy distribution would eventually take enormous strain out of the energy grid which is currently needed to transfer and distribute the electricity from central energy production facilities. It could therefore bring additional savings in regards to maintenance of the grid network and therefore bring the cost further down. Although Its probably difficult to factor this in right now as it will take many years before we reach this point.

[@Christopherfrost13]

Thank you sir, for your honesty and bluntness.

[@PlasmaChannel]

Joe, this was a great video, and the transparency on how it destroyed you, is relatable. I've had a few videos where the science is not matching up with what I want to do. I'll abandon a halfway shot video, go to a new idea, then return to the halfway shot video...and repeat for a week straight. Look, I thought your final product was super informative.

[@thewiirocks]

@@Reiman33 Plasma is describing cognitive dissonance. It's that sort of "lock up" effect that happens when your expectations and reality are out of whack with each other. As long as Plasma resolves the problem by accepting the evidence in the end, everything is fine. The alternative is to go full zealot and fully commit to your position against all evidence. The latter is not pretty and leads to a lot of our fringe screwballs.

[@SpydersByte]

@@Reiman33 way to twist his words. If he was all about confirmation bias surely he'd be overlooking this inconvenient data. All he said was "where the science is not matching up with what I want to do". Just like Joe, in this video, was hoping to talk up solar and renewables as the new thing when he found that the data doesn't completely support that. And he did what's right and told it as it is, not how he wants it to be.

[@tigertoo01]

What a load of self fulfilling crap. Joe did nothing which many you tubers have done previously which is to just look at the problem in a simplistic face value way. It’s beyond infuriating how much information could have been included but wasn’t.

[@SpydersByte]

@@tigertoo01 oh yea? and I'm sure you're gonna make a video that's far better than his and includes all this information that "could've been included but wasn't"? What's that, you're not? You're just bitching for no reason whatsoever and you haven't got a clue what you're talking about? That's what I thought.

[@tcmtech7515]

@@tigertoo01 That's the whole problem with RE/AE theory. Way too much of it can not work anywhere outside highly specific niche applications and still be viable on its own. It's like socialism/communism. It works great until you try to scale it up.

[@user-uj6sc7ls9y]

As long as the value attributed to _keeping out planet habitable_ is so low, we're totally screwed.

[@phiggins5207]

Habitable, or roughly the same as I remember as a kid? Habitable really isn't a serious concern.

[@user-uj6sc7ls9y]

@@phiggins5207 Uhhh, yes it is.

[@hoffmantnt]

@@phiggins5207 Much of the U.S. will remain habitable. Some countries will become uninhabitable. And this IS a serious concern.

[@WereSalamander]

@@hoffmantnt Yep, and guess where all those people are going to go? If you thought the migrant caravan crises of Europe and the border with Mexico the past years was bad, oh boy. You're about to find out just how people might become accepting of military gunning down innocents by the thousands at the borders, and leaving potentially billions to starve in the wasteland.

[@josephburchanowski4636]

@@user-uj6sc7ls9y Really it isn't. The Earth isn't going to become uninhabitable through global warming. Much like how it would not become uninhabitable after a full blown nuclear war (also humanity wouldn't go extinct in a full blown nuclear war either). Both global warming and nuclear war are really really bad (understatement). But that doesn't mean we should exaggerate how bad they are. Global warming by itself is going to cause a gigantic refugee crises like we haven't seen before. Also it can cause mass famines as well as many other problems. And that is disregarding the ecological damage, which will be immense. To be short, it is in everyone's best interest if we reduce Co2 emissions to reduce how severe the global warming will be.

[@McCoymiked]

I really appreciate you giving this problem a fair shake. I used to run campaigns around creating a cleaner energy future, and fight coal plant construction. Now I build solar and wind farms. There’s so much oversimplification of the issue in campaigns and I’m the media, but like most of life it’s not a simple problem. Understanding the problem as it actually is far more helpful in helping people produce positive change than going in misunderstanding it to begin with.

[@thowl7065]

I love your videos! I just wanted to tell you, so many people say what you did about electric cars and how much they cost. You can buy good used ones pretty cheap. I have a hybrid Prius. It works out best for me because I don't have to plug it in and use more electricity, but I still feel like I'm doing my part in this problem, at least for now. It's a 2012, I've had it 2 1/2 yrs, it looks and drives like brand new, gets 50 mpg and my payment is $150 a month. When I tell people this online, they are surprised. Everyone thinks they can't afford to drive a less polluting car and it's just not the case. I hope you see this, but it's been awhile since you uploaded this video. If you do try to pass this information on, thank you.

[@FrankLloydTeh]

I wanna see your take on small modular reactors.

[@burnttoast6974]

How small are we talking?

[@TheZer0wtf]

@@burnttoast6974 like container size

[@simoncavill]

And what exactly do you do with the waste? No country on Earth has yet to devise and implement a permanent means of safe storage. There is a vast amount of radioactive waste that just keeps growing and growing including old power stations and nuclear subs etc.

[@albertjackinson]

@@simoncavill As far as I know, they produce far less waste than standard, older reactors.

[@simoncavill]

@@albertjackinson - but my point still stands - what do you do with the waste and the old power stations at their end of life?

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

It's not just about money, the politics of climate change must also be considered. Nuclear will have to be reconsidered if we want abundant electricity.

[@cpob2013]

market pressures are what gave us the climate crisis in the first place. they need to be disregarded and have decisions made politically. nuclear should be implemented asap

[@umka7536]

Where do store nuclear waste?

[@Stewi1014]

Yeah... I don't like nuclear and I'd love for better energy sources to become the mainstream, but the facts are simple. Nuclear is a really great option. It's a shame people don't understand how simple it is to responsibly deal with nuclear waste.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

@@Stewi1014 No one has ever died from stored nuclear waste, it's very much safe at the sites where it is produced to be used in the future for fuel in thorium molten salt reactors.

[@xxxnyanthecatxxx]

@@umka7536 Waste can be used as fuel again, in different types of reactors, as it is still continues it's fission process. However, those plants is experimental hi-tech and won't be cheap.

[@kimwilliams722]

Thanks Joe I enjoy hearing your commentary on issues

[@supermaster2012]

Spining things underwater like, you know, every single motorized ship in history?

[@NickRoman]

Yeah, a lot of maintenance. But, at least there is a lot of know-how behind it. I watched another video which talked about how no one has yet been able to make ocean wave energy profitable. There are a number of methods and none of them work out for reasons. Anyway, that's what I heard.

[@supermaster2012]

@@NickRoman the same maintenance as, you know, every single motorized ship in history? The propeler of literally any medium to large cargo ship is going to be significantly bigger than any underwater generator. Water provides hundreds of times more lift than air because of its density, you don't need a huge wingspan to make your blades spin.

[@VAspeed3]

@@supermaster2012 That's all nice, but water, particularly salt water, is a very hostile environment for anything metal. It's corrosive, and the particulate crud in the water accumulates exactly where you don't want it. That's why collecting energy from waves doesn't work for very long -- the water slows down around the collectors and the whole thing fills up with sediment.

[@larrywiniarski1746]

Yeah and boats pay big bucks to make them spin and keep spinning. Put a boat in the tidal current. Anchor it. See how the propeller "doesn't" spin up and start generating big buckets of electricity for free :-). Not that it's impossible but saltwater boat owners generally know that maintenance is a !@#$. Barnacles, antifouling paint, rust, storms. It's just a lot of stuff in a harsh environment for very little payback.

[@cdeford]

Maintenance on them is done out of the water.

[@MrBigwat]

There Joe goes again... being accurate while being extremely entertaining. Whether you like the info or not, his style rocks.

[@wiedzma_nie_niewiasta]

I'm putting solar panels on my roof this year. I don't even care if I get my money back. I can afford it, so I'm doing it.

[@zazugee]

i already did 5 years ago the storage isnt cheap, but think of it as being self-sufficient no poweroutages/blackout, no fridge's meat that go bad either

[@morosis82]

For me the greatest part of tech like solar panels is that we the people can control the production. Virtually every other tech you are still reliant on some centralised party making energy that you pay for ad infinitum.

[@tcmtech7515]

So you spend more to get less in the name of energy efficiency? That doesn't sound very efficient both financially and energy wise.

[@SlamminGraham]

I did a few years ago. You'll get your money back, but be prepared to wait a reeeeeeeeally long time (circa 12-15 years).

[@morosis82]

@@SlamminGraham depends. Here in sunny Queensland it's more like 2.5 years. Cost under $5k for a 6.5kW system, is averaging around 35kWh a day at the moment. We average about 25kWh a day, so it pays for itself pretty quick.

[@withwarrenandangel]

Facts are always a handy thing to have when forming an opinion worth sharing. We're making progress towards a true feel-good energy source! Thanks for supporting the cause Joe & team!!

[@curtisjmwc]

Awesome video as always - thank you

[@mellissadalby1402]

I greatly appreciate the journalistic integrity you applied to the presentation of the data.

[@bluebox2000]

He even admitted the video was a mess, and this one was. Too much constant talking. Also coal is not cheap which is why it's being shut down everywhere. Utility scale solar and wind are now the cheapest new power source. Lazard LCOE shows this.

[@brettvanwey9419]

@@bluebox2000 the only reason coal is now more expensive is due to outlawing coal mining in the US. Solar and wind have been artificially inflated, not saying it’s a bad thing but there are some really big problems with wind and solar PV that haven’t been realized yet.

[@MrExeetor]

Coal isnt really beeing shut down everywhere. Look at large economies like China. Its still cheap but most "important". Its easy and known. Prob biggest reason its so used

[@mtdavis9568]

@@brettvanwey9419 " The Only Reason..." Is an "Absolutism" and I always am wary of those arguments. When Coal seams were literally accessible right at the surface of a Hill, Coal WAS "cheap". Because it was "Easy" to shovel into a cart & haul away. The minute humans had to build Tunnel Complexes to obtain deeper sources, it was on its way to taking more resources to obtain it. And that was in terms of the primitive methods of tracking "Capital expenditure" that evolved, that we still labor under today. Sole dependence on "Capital Expenditure" for tracking "Investment" is NOT Holographic. It is a One dimensional measuring stick that misses the LARGER expenses for accessing coal. Today there are HUGE expenses for the enormous machines, transportation investments, Processing, and the POST -usage expenses, of disease, climate change, and species loss that are almost ALWAYS conveniently left off the books of "Capital Expenditures" - Yet are REAL expenses. Millionaires who MINDLESSLY pursue COAL as a continuing energy source are perfect examples of Ayn Rand thinking. Which is all about Abandoning any responsibility to the rest of the species.

[@pawsnpistons]

He forgot earthquakes as downside of geothermic also he didnt mention biogas plants and he suggested that most of the oil is used for transportation which is not, its only ~29%. So he isnt very scientific.

[@DaffaBun]

Joe: "The ocean is flat" Me: *gasp* ... I trusted you... o-o

[@dariepearjuicy1356]

When did he say it? I tried to find it but gave up 🙁

[@AlexIr99]

@@dariepearjuicy1356 9:09. He means the ocean is flat compared to land. Which is true in the small scale that we are talking about.

[@dariepearjuicy1356]

@@AlexIr99 #flatoceansociety

[@nunya___]

🤪

[@PrinceAlhorian]

He should have said level... Not flat...

[@sketchjennings3878]

Joe, you are bad ass. Your presentation has impressed me. Rock on bud!

[@theamericandemocracyausers513]

Oh hi! I did my Law & Policy PhD on grid-scale energy storage projects, and I need to push back on your claim that storage needs to be included as part of the LCOE for renewables: Storage also provides other services beyond simply stabilizing the behavior of intermittent renewables. DoE found 27 different ways storage projects provide value to the grid, and facilitating renewables deployment wasn't even the top earner - allowing for the deferment of transmission line replacement/upgrade was (being able to put off the costs of projects that run into the hundreds of millions of dollars gets you some pretty sick present-value-of-money leverage). There's also a problem when comparing fuel costs between wind and solar vs. systems that consume fuel - the sunlight and/or wind that renewables use still happens yet goes uncounted for burners. Solar may average in the 30% range for conversion of that sunlight to electrical power, but a coal plant converts that sun to electricity at a flat 0% efficiency. In general, LCOE has some serious negative externality (which you cover) and system boundary definition issues - it's an okay sanity check when used correctly, but it is not and should never be the be-all, end-all for making energy choices; which is often what it's used for. (You do a decent job of contextualizing what it is and what it isn't.)

[@scipilee4296]

The first thing I noticed was your glasses on the shelf. Congrats on that man

[@joescott]

You're the first person to point it out! :)

[@gforce2002]

@@joescott I noticed them, but only to the point of “those look familiar...”. Societal and environmental costs definitely need to be taken into account with the carbon based technology. Keeping it to economics, what is the estimated cost of climate change effects? But like you said - climate tax.

[@Lord.Kiltridge]

The power of all the hot air in DC should be harnessed.

[@I_Am_AI_007]

That is already used as a suppliment for the burning energy of the body.

[@andrewbernard6649]

And all the pure methane BS they spread could power a city.

[@I_Am_AI_007]

@@andrewbernard6649 That play an important role in annoying people...

[@ObscuraGrey]

Your timing is hilarious, since the hot air output has dropped by almost half in the past week. I guess that could be a good way to make the orange turd and all the administration officials that will all be together in one place (a building with metal bars) something to do with their time.

[@irri3191]

Don't forget grumpy old man farts

[@rudiwiedemann8173]

OUTSTANDING survey!

[@jserr50]

Thanks for the thoughtful video. Promising stuff!

[@rivertaig8703]

"What did I leave out"?? What desperately needs to be considered is the economic cost of burning coal and other fossil fuels to the future of the planet. There are real dollar values there, and that would truly be a great topic to explore in a future video. That cost needs to be passed on to the companies that extract fossil fuels and those who burn them. If those costs were actually part of the equation, the economics would most definitely swing in the direction of renewables.

[@Psi-Storm]

In Europe we have a carbon price of around 25€ per ton of CO2, this would add around 3 cent per kWh to coal plants. Scientists are arguing that one ton of CO2 will produce damages of at least 180€ in the future, but even at 100€ per ton, fossil fuel plants would cease to exist. Him using residential pv prices to compare against nuclear is misleading. Big Solar farms in sunny locations like Italy or Texas can produce energy for 3 cents. Closer to the equator like Indonesia or Australia can probably drop that to 2 cents. Even Canada can produce for 6 cent. www.iea.org/articles/levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator

[@0ChanMan]

I wonder what the cost of all those spent unrecyclable PV panels and batteries would be to make an equal comparison.

[@Psi-Storm]

@@0ChanMan you know what definitely isn't recyclable? Burnt fossil fuels. The new pv panels are two glass plates with silicon modules between them and an aluminum frame around. Even lifepo4 batteries are already >90% recyclable.

[@Nope_handlesaretrash]

@@0ChanMan this. I'm not against renewables but people will leave out the environmental costs of disposing of wind turbine blades, mining lithium and rare earths (and the human costs such as revolutions in South America and Chinese working conditions), etc. Nuclear is the closest to a holy grail of energy for us right now, bang to buck.

[@bobinthewest8559]

Each "sub industry" within the "energy industry"... seems to have its own set of factors which they prefer to omit from the equations. Environmental impacts, human impacts, wastes that no one knows (yet) how to deal with, "true" costs, etc... These all must be factored in before anyone can truly say we've "found the solution". Finding some way to align "profitability" with "sustainability" is the real "solution". Until that somehow emerges... there will continue to be dishonesty in the calculations.

[@nathanhaskell1743]

This shows me that 1 we are at a turning point and 2 that probably the most important next advancement is energy storage.

[@lordsamich755]

Every grid scale energy storage suggestion teeters on the edge of complete lunacy. Pumped storage sort of works only because it's a natural fit with the square cube law. Even if battery's of any type could store ten fold the energy density; can you honestly not see the absurdity in maintaining battery arrays of that size?

[@James-sk4db]

We all know the best option is an orbital ring with solar panels on with a tether to earth to transport the energy back.

[@LaercioCruvinel]

Extraordinary. Thank you.

[@scottetter]

This is the best video you've made. Please make more videos on the energy industry.

[@AntneeUK]

I wasn't imagining things was I? Joe was smirking when he said "I think geothermal is really cool" 😎

[@macfilms9904]

Funny enough I've had a 20 minute conversation with Joe (Biden) on energy policy - and he got to the same place I did - yeah grow renewable, but smarter nuclear has to be a part of it

[@andrewbernard6649]

"What did we learn today kids?" Joe makes good videos. Covering energy production is certain to anger a range of watchers yet Joe sticks to the facts and leaves an audience already grouped into armed camps with little to complain about. That kids is how to make a video. Another Joe said it best: "Just the facts, ma'am".

[@User__Not__Found]

Can admit, as a guy who has been historically super skeptical, it is refreshing to see someone just put the numbers out and let them talk. I was stubborn as hell to admit there was a problem, but now I'm more on the side of "What is really causing it?". As a programmer by trade, I have a habit of trying to find the real cause of bugs rather than patching the symptoms. If the cause of climate change really is greenhouse gasses, great. We can fix that. I'm skeptical, however, due to the highly politicized nature of the topic. I want to see if it's really increased solar activity, greenhouse gasses, a combination of both, or even an unrelated third item that hasn't been looked at yet. I'm a guy that needs numbers, and Joe putting out a video giving just that is a breath of fresh air in a cloud of stench given off by both sides of the argument. When both sides of the argument have a habit of saying things along the lines of "You're a moron if you believe the other side", It's hard to find honest, clean, unhindered information.

[@jpedrosc98]

@@User__Not__Found you should read some books by Vaclav Smil. He is a true "numbers guy", applying it for engineering, politics, economics and even social dietary choices. And, of course, climate change. It was the first time I had someone actually presenting me referenced data for both global and local carbon consumption and emissions from different sources. All that while being sincere about the difficulty of making predictions, nonetheless assessing the accuracy of previous predictions and clarifying trends that are already happening.

[@User__Not__Found]

@@jpedrosc98 Much appreciated, I'll look into it!

[@joescott]

I've got a couple of his books. Very dry, but very thorough. But very dry.

[@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV]

So those coal costs don't include the clean up of the radioactive elements, acid rain etc? Just $ for MW? www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

[@alexmorelli2826]

Really enjoyed this video, glad you made it in the end 👍

[@natalieirwin616]

Hey Joe - this is a fantastic video. I am a masters of sustainable energy student (PT) and work in energy efficiency (FT), so can appreciate how complex the energy system is to explain. Well done! I’m sure you can guess what’s coming - what about energy efficiency??? Can you do a part two that explains what energy efficiency is and the cost per kWh for savings comparison to other energy sources. As well as the importance of it (especially in places like California). Thank you! Keep up the awesome work.

[@rlaxton666]

You really hit the nail on the head with your closing statements. Coal and natural gas are only cheaper because they have socialised/externaised most of their costs. Carbon pricing levels the playing field and then reflects the true cost of carbon intensive energy sources.

[@Dan-gs3kg]

Look into the paleoclimate problem of climate modeling, given the various ways to track ancient CO2 and temperatures, the WMIP6, RCP8.5, and so on radically overestimate past temperatures. To say the least that IPCC noble laureates putting out papers that carbon levels follow heating trends. Or the recent data where in spite of a decrease of carbon pollution, average temperatures are increasing at a faster rate due to a lack of aerosel pollution. Or the paper put out by the AGU that points out that carbon heating is moderated by geomagnetism.

[@Dan-gs3kg]

@Jeff Johnson fails the temperature anomaly of last year to this, where carbon has dropped by a large amount, yet the temperature rose faster than predicted. Fails to mention the paleoclimate problem, if it is "right" today, but wrong on all other days with identical or worse circumstances, then is the model right? Fails to note that average temperature increase happens most at night, not at the day. Fails to mention that Saudi Arabia, Spain, China have had record breaking winter snows and cold this year, or the US having the same trend, but in fall for the last few years. Or that the hottest recent period (1930's US) is still twenty degrees hotter than the hottest in this millennia, and had record low carbon, and in the same year it was over ninety for three months across the entire US.

[@James-sk4db]

Carbon pricing doesn’t reflect shit, it’s an arbitrary number that makes energy more expensive. The cheaper the energy the better especially when it comes to the third world. You make energy more expensive you make manufacturing less competitive, then boom all the factories move to Asia where there is cheap coal powering the plant and where they will be less green than if they stayed in the west. But hay ho out of sight out of mind even if it leads to the oceans and cities choking in smog and pollutants.

[@chapter4travels]

Try to calculate the cost of not having fossil fuels.

[@paulbedichek2679]

@@James-sk4db Right , but we need to put huge Carbon taxes on Chinese exports.

[@robynwyrick]

"Did I leave anything out?" Well, you left out conservation and the global, COVID-19 experiment. I work at the NIH, which had a fairly strict, "nobody works from home," policy - up until COVID. Suddenly nobody went to the office. A huge effort was made to secure reliable, at-home, virtual workspaces. And suddenly, something that was essentially impossible was the absolute standard. I drove to work, 30 miles in, then 30 miles out, every day - all the time stuck in hellish, Washington DC traffic. Now I drive to pick up groceries once a week. My automotive fuel use went from a tank of gas every few days to a tank every couple weeks - a reduction of probably 75%. Nearly every office in the country could do that - which would save money, increase the quality of work, and massively cut carbon emissions. What did I do with the savings? I added it to the CARES Act stimulus, and put a solar panel array on my home, which took us completely off of oil heat. What I **could** do (and will do eventually) is add more efficient insulation, to further reduce my heat loss. All of this saves me money. There is a lot we can do as an advanced nation; not just enact increased penalties on carbon. COVID exposed a massive glut of unneeded office space all around the country. An aggressive, federal and state program could do that. Nearly every home in Maryland could be fitted with solar. It could be part of the building code for new constructions, AND SAVE MONEY. But we don't. And a great channel like this should mention it. I don't expect all the line items to run in the black, but overall, conservation is vastly less costly than inventing a new, world-changing technology.

[@PinataOblongata]

Excellent points all around!

[@matthewwriter9539]

Joe, thank you for being willing to say that the research didn't show what you wanted it to show, yet you are doing it anyway, even though it contradiction what you want to be true. 7:44 I live in Spokane, WA and we love hydroelectric dams here. All our electric power comes from this.

[@MatjazPredanic]

Great video, Joe... as always!

[@JohnPatrickAlexander]

Joe, love your work. I think this was missed, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall you calculating in government subsidies.

[@jaap7374]

Government subsidies don't change the cost. They just destribute the cost differently. Subsidies are good to drive innovation and overcome the hurdle of start-up costs, but after that, a technology should be able to stand on its own.

[@chapter4travels]

If you are a cheerleader for renewables, you better hope not.

[@nonotorious1467]

Geothermal is cool, we literally live on a skin covering a ball of lava, we should totally use it more.

[@Rattus-Norvegicus]

Yes, I love this fact.

[@cooking_bakingg]

imagine taking energy from active volcanos... but it might be too hot!!!

[@feryth]

We literally live on what we call the "crust". We're like cornmeal on pizza crust.

[@evankurniawan1311]

Still need a lot of requirements before we can use it though. The rock layer must be permeable to some degrees for water, the volcanic activity must not be too active and the location must be actually stable, no random mid size earthquake that will break pipe and building

[@fritt_wastaken]

Geothermal may cause problems with that "skin" if you use it too much.

[@coder0xff]

Great video. Well done.

[@charleslauter5035]

Nice job of Clarifying this subject.

[@sirierieott5882]

Humility and honesty is what makes your channel very human and relatable. Keeping it real, makes it interesting. I’m a subscriber since sub 50K count and you are one of the few channels that has carefully kept your character and charm.

[@LiamborninDC]

The LCOE doesn't include the cost of long term damage. For instance, cleaning up the toxic water that seeps into the soil from fracking or damage done by the earthquakes i.e. Oklahoma. The private sector makes a mess and tells the public sector to pay for it, but if we start charging the private sector for the clean up, then the cost ratio changes dramatically.

[@victormiranda9163]

If Nuclear power we allowed to toss it's major pollutants out the door as coal and fracking have... nuclear is the clear winner. so LCOE is flawed.

[@PinataOblongata]

@@victormiranda9163 Have we factored in the externalities of digging a massive uranium mine, powering all the digging equipment with diesel, manufacturing and running an ore processing plant, manufacturing and running large trucks to transport the ore and processed uranium large distances, on roads that may need to be built just for that purpose, in some cases?

[@OneLeatherBoot]

@@PinataOblongata , coal has similar considerations. Having said that, there is a huge amount of R & D on electric mobile mining fleets, as the diesel cost is a huge cost to mining operations. Lots of large open pit mines use dual diesel, with electic boost haul trucks in the >200t class to assist trucks going up ramps faster & more efficiently. Not only that, but once you move underground, then there is a set amount of air that needs to be sent underground for every diesel engine - ratio based upon engine size. This is another large cost. If you go back to underground mining prior to the 1980's, then a lot of undergound mines used electric rail haulage, draw points to channel ore into loading pockets etc. This was often fine for large, long life mines, but becomes very impracticable for smaller operations, where more flexibility is required in the underground mining fleet. In Australia, there are a lot of mines that have, or are bringing in different power generating plants for their sites that do not rely on diesel oil (most used to). Mines, depending upon their size can easily burn through $50k to $1M+ a day in diesel costs across all plant and equipment on site. Now double that daily diesel cost, which is what happened over a 12 month period with international oil price spikes for many operations. There is significant desire in the metals mining industry to bring in cheaper & greener energy sources. The coal mining industry probably not as much.

[@Nope_handlesaretrash]

Surface water is rarely an issue with fracking, there is a huge amount of steel and concrete between the water table and the pipe interstitial space. And not everywhere has issues with geological arrays like oklahoma seems to have. North Dakota for example is nearly perfect for fracking. Geologically stable, plentiful, and mostly empty of people.

[@richardbaird1452]

@@PinataOblongata Those externalities exist for every source of energy, including solar and wind, so they are a wash when comparing sources. 4th gen Nuclear doesn't need the majority of those sources as most 4th gen are capable of using existing spent fuel as the source.

[@AdamDadeby]

There is also "negawatts" through energy efficiency. Generally, it's cheaper to use efficiencies to reduce the energy needed to deliver useful work than it is to generate additional energy.

[@richardbaird1452]

As you note, generally that is true, particularly where demand is relatively stable. However if the goal is to electrify the majority of the energy system which most reputable source suggest will require somewhere in the range of 3 times what we currently generate, conservation over and above regular replacement at end of life may be a rounding error.

[@someoneelse7629]

As someone who has designed offgrid solar systems, the cheapest watt is the one you save instead of using. It is much cheaper to save 100W a day then to buy another 100W of solar panels and storage. Especially if you do it correct and budget for a possibility of 3 days with little to no sun...

[@richardbaird1452]

@@someoneelse7629 Absolutely in the context of an isolated system. no debate there. However, in the context of entire nations which this vid is discussing and infrastructure such as lighting, heating/cooling, transportation, etc...that has a limited life and needs to be replaced on a schedule anyway, I contend it makes more sense to spend current $ on new capacity now and do the conservation spend over time. We need somewhere near 3 times the current generating capacity to electrify virtually everything. In that context, begin spending immediately on the increased capacity and over time the conservation will happen naturally at end of life and meet up in the end.

[@AdamDadeby]

@@richardbaird1452 I am sure that there has been some analysis to try to quantify what you are describing. In places like China and Inda, where lots of new energy-consuming infrastructure is being put in place, it must be cheaper to build/design to very high efficiency standards. Here in the UK, we have a lot of existing inefficient infrastructure. There will be a point where the cost of the marginal additional negawatt is higher than the cost of new additional megawatt. That point will be different for every country and every sector.

[@richardbaird1452]

@@AdamDadeby True enough. I'm in Canada and our starting point is similar to the UK. What I see happening on the ground in terms of govt spend is oldest consumption assets being replaced pretty much as they would be anyway even if they weren't being made more efficient, while at the same time additional GHG free generation is being built out. Street lighting is sometimes an exception. In private industry and homes it is slightly different. Those tend to upgrade earlier as the cost/benefit makes sense if they are in a position to afford it and there are some subsidies available to make that happen a bit quicker. At some point, efficiency conversions will certainly allow some batches of extra MW of generation to be avoided which is great. My main point was not that efficiency conversions shouldn't be done, but rather that so much extra capacity is needed to electrify everything (excluding flight for now) and the lead time to build that generation is so long that it needs to be the major focus or we simply won't get there. Let's remember that all the current NG and petrol used for both electric AND non-electric will need to be converted as well over time and that gives a bigger GHG bang for the spend in most cases for a country like UK or Canada that are already ~80% non ghg electric generation. That is where my rounding error comment comes from, not a pure cost/watt electric view. I view it from a cost/non-ghg watt of the complete energy system with the knowledge that even using the most efficient consumption, 2-3 times current generation is needed within ~30 years to phase out nearly all the gas, petroleum and coal burning regardless of what they are used for.

[@johanpetersson1339]

Thanks for a good episode!

[@AvenEngineer]

It's a real shame we must abide the laws of thermodynamics.

[@tcmtech7515]

I thought those were racist tools of the patriarchy now?

[@bramvanduijn8086]

IKR?! Just think of the possibilities if we could just ignore those damned laws!

[@ttld678]

@@bramvanduijn8086 all hope may not be lost yet. We still know that our models of the universes arnt complete yet. We need to get spiffing Brit to exploit thermodynamics

[@Mesder13]

@@ttld678 The laws of thermodynamics are perfectly balanced with no exploits

[@agimasoschandir]

scientific laws are not policies that are to abide by, they are descriptions

[@pstoppani]

You should have at least shown a comparison with the IPCC recommended carbon tax to include the social cost of carbon. Here in WA the utilities have to include it in their costs :)

[@Mir-gw6kj]

this is why carbon taxing in general is so important...making these energy costs an incentive to invest in and subsidize renewables moving forward

[@mattmcc7930]

Then you should have to show the economic cost of all power types not just carbon based energy. For instance, the blades on wind turbine are made of carbon fiber or fiber glass with a shelf life of 15-20 years neither carbon fiber or fiber glass is recyclable. What are you going to do with all those millions of tons of blades in 15-20 years? Burn them? Barry them? Throw them into the ocean? What about the carbon footprint to produce those blades? Solar has similar issues. It's a little unfair to show the social cost of one type and ignore the social cost of another. Are you going to carbon tax wind turbines and solar panels based on their carbon footprint? Are going to tax them based on their non recycled waste?

[@alliotteraphael1073]

@@mattmcc7930 A major point is that recycling is much easier when there are big homogene quantities to recycle. So if you truly have big quantities of wind turbine blades, it might become economical to recycle them. And even if you can't and need to shred them and feed them to waste to energy plants, where is the problem? Compared to the annual waste production, the added quantity would be quite insignificant. For PV pannels specific recycling circuits are likely to be developped, and for concentrated solar power recycling circuits are already developped, since most of the power plant is made of steel, glass and concrete. Indeed the carbon footprint of the production also needs to be taken into account, and all of this advocates for a true carbon tax, as it would be a fair and easy way to take every carbon footprint into account.

[@rickknight1810]

@@mattmcc7930 Over the lifetime of the equipment, those costs are insignificant compared to the enormous costs incurred from fossil fuels. Besides, entrepreneurs are already finding ways to recycle or repurpose wind turbine blades.

[@mattmcc7930]

@@rickknight1810 You are absolutely wrong. Those costs are not insignificant... compared to anything.The lifetime of a wind turbine is twenty years. So if we build millions of turbines every twenty years the amount of waste would be astronomical. The ratio of power to waste produced by wind turbines is not sustainable by any measure for anything more then a very small percent of our power needs. If you think otherwise then I implore to do some research. Solar is better but not by much. Anyone who believes we can meet all of our electric needs through solar and wind is not looking at all the facts. If you really want to solve the worlds energy problems you should be looking at nuclear. It is the only current technology that can do it cleanly and safely.

[@Leopold5100]

excellent, as always

[@josueantoniosantostrinidad2316]

Thanks for this!

[@matthewallen3375]

Can you talk about the FASST reactors discussed in the "Elysium's New Reactor EATS Nuclear Waste" vid? it talks about using spent fuel from traditional nuclear reactors to power another type of nuclear reactor. promise seems worth looking into.

[@danieljensen2626]

The idea has been around for decades at this point, and I believe scientists are working on it still, but unfortunately nuclear plants are so politically unpopular it'll probably never get built. At least in the US, maybe France or something will do it.

[@albertjackinson]

@@danieljensen2626 The new administration in the US (or at least the President) supports nuclear as a solution to transitioning away from fossil fuels. That's a good sign.

[@ethanlibera4876]

It is cool but thorium is way more efficient then both rectors combined, and there are already ready to be made there just needs to be government approval, you should look into it’s pretty cool

[@vipondiu]

Hi, fast spectrum reactors have been around for decades. Any metal cooled reactor is a hard-spectrum reactor, some molten salt (chlorides specifically). The advantatge of the fast spectrum is that it burns all the actinides that thermal spectrum tends to accumulate, so it's not really "burning the other reactors' waste" as much as burning the most problematic isotopes of that waste, the long-lived transuranics. Processing of the waste-stream is very beneficial but avoidable if one is not concerned with reducing the waste/fuel-stream volume to the limit. There are other advantatges like being able to achieve crazy breeding ratios, but the transuranic burning thing is the big one. Why are fast-spectrum basically non-existent in the west? economics. Mining uranium, enriching it to reactor-grade, fabricating the fuel assemblies, burning it in a conventional reactor and storing the spent fuel somewhere (after releasing only 0.5% of it's energy) is cheap enough. There is no shortage of Uranium nor an unmanageble amount of nuclear waste, despite the "green" propaganda, to require us to modernize nuclear, and is difficult enough to implement conventional nuclear with all the bad rap it carries much less to put money into new ideas. BTW there's another comment above mine about "thorium is more efficient that both combined" that makes no sense, and bears no relation to the comparison between thermal and fast reactors.

[@chapter4travels]

@@vipondiu Upfront capital cost and inherent safety are the drivers along with the political side of reducing both domestic nuclear waste and military waste. Thorcon Power's MSR once through burner has a third party construction estimate lower than both coal and natural gas. Elysium Industries molten chloride fast neutron reactor can utilize un-reprocessed high-level waste including military waste. This is the future, when will it get to the US, who knows, but Asia will benefit first with Thorcon.

[@Jojojo09]

A very interesting video. I love how neutral this video is. Many are biased when it comes to the economics of renewable energy (some say it is very expensive and some say it is very cheap).

[@charlesseymour1482]

The best thing is your honesty about the bad news about photo voltaics and good news about economics. The real motivation.

[@Kenlwallace]

Walk-away-safe, low-pressure, molten salt Nuclear (e.g. Thorium or waste from old reactors)

[@kallehalvarsson5808]

The problem as it stands is that reprocessing waste from old reactors is actually significantly more expensive than just mining new uranium.

[@baum8981]

In the long run, its the only realistic way of getting rid of existing waste though

[@chapter4travels]

@@kallehalvarsson5808 Actually not, the Elysium Industries molten salt breeder needs no fuel reprocessing, chop up the used fuel pellets and chuck them into the reactor. (ok, there is a bit more than that but the NRC does not consider it reprocessing.)

[@DesignateVoid]

This screams “shoulda done a collab with Economics Explained”

[@carloguerrero6583]

Collab! Collab! Colab! ..i could go on

[@jayayerson8819]

I've seen enough of both to suspect they wouldn't get along, and that neither of them really have enough political economy theory to understand why.

[@carryontravelling8734]

@@jayayerson8819 I think they'd get along fine. Having an EE breakdown of longterm econonics would have been great.

[@lonestarr1490]

@@jayayerson8819 + It would be quite inconvenient for them to do skype calls or whatever, since EE is based on the other side of the planet in Australia. So they'd have to deal with a shift of about 17 hours.

[@BeautifulEarthJa]

economics explained is neoliberal so we already know he'd say stick with coal based on the 'economics' of it

[@47f0]

MMM - missing in those short term equations is the real cost of various energy sources. While it's hard to project how much it will cost to relocate 1/3 of Miami, or just how much health care is needed due to air pollution, those are real numbers, too. Our recycle/disposal costs of various energy sources are also not factored into those equations. How much does it cost to get rid of a ton of nuclear waste, or a square kilometer of aged solar cells? Our current energy policy is based on a very capitalist, hence short-term cost/benefit analysis. We need to figure how to factor in total lifetime costs if we're actually going to have energy policies that serve the future.

[@SuperSupersoda]

It's short term cost/benefit analysis because human beings are incredibly short sighted creatures. You can't change human nature, and any attempt to do so will fail. Accept that and build your policy with the assumption that human beings are short sighted, stupid, and evil built-in and your plans will work out much better. I am the only person I know who recycles, for example. Saving the earth sounds great until it requires people to do work. If you want to switch energy technologies to something cleaner that's better for climate change, people will support you, until the second their energy bill goes up as a result. Don't ask people to change. Understand that this is the reality of the world, and that any plan must account for this. Just like you can't build solar in places where it rains all the time, or you can't build wind in places with no wind. Take human nature as one of those givens.

[@clevertaco328]

Been there, done that. I could of saved you a lot of time, but we all have to take our own paths. Only then, can we come to our own conclusions and realizations. I'm happy that you decided to follow through with this video. I do believe it's important, not only for us, but also for you. Thank You for the insight and knowledge you have shared with all of us over the years!

[@josecarlosserralwigge519]

Good summary. Regards from Spain

[@sitrilko]

Joe: "What did I leave out?" Me: "Fusion! Oh, wait..." :(

[@feandil666]

Fusion is the end game, but best estimates we're not gonna get any production facility until at least 2050, probably 2080. It's gonna be too late for climate change... Managing a 100 millions degrees plasma is not easy.

[@dutchflats]

Fusion: the power of the future.....and always will be?!

[@xponen]

I don't like nuclear energy at all because of radioactivity & how messy it is to deal with it, even Fusion will produce radioactive waste... like when neutrons hit the shielding anything became radioactive and get damaged and they have to be continually replenished. It is all messy & restrictive, it is like playing lava-is-the-floor game or handling a virus, too messy.

[@NOTNOTJON]

don't worry, fusion is only 20 or so years away.

[@agimasoschandir]

@@xponen People are exposed to many types of radiation, including nuclear radiation, everyday, in varying amounts. Nuclear radiation is messy to deal with only in the sense that it is limited by the intelligence of the people handling it

[@jamesh3837]

This is solidly one of the best videos you've ever done.

[@CraftyF0X]

As well as probably one of the most wok intensive as it compiles a good amount of relevant data.

[@joseycarlson3564]

I love this channel so much. Facts do matter

[@tjkowalski2373]

Joe, you need to do a video on micro or small nuclear reactors.

[@cooper1507]

It's coming sincerely one of Joe's writers

[@trevinbeattie4888]

Something else not taken into consideration here for non-renewables is how much longer we have until they run out. Recently in response to a relative’s comment about the Keystone pipeline I looked up statistics on our current oil usage and estimates on how much oil remains to be tapped, and at current consumption rates it looks like we’ll exhaust the word’s resources in about 40 years; we have around another 40 years’ worth in reserves. That’s within a single human lifetime. In addition, another friend indicated that as we get closer to exhausting the natural resources it will become more and more expensive to extract it.

[@robinsmith8846]

And even if renewable energy sources take that time frame up to 80 years....as they come online tge next 20 or so years...that is still less than the expected lifetine of one relatively healthy person. One life time! Money is king...until we run out of oil. Then the world will have to scramble to replace it. This where we will need great minds and new ideas... And we better hope they show up. We..meaning others as I will be long gone and unable to see these brillant saviors.

[@markrothenbuhler6232]

I would also have liked to see Joe cover the subsidies for each of these energy options. No company does any of this simply for the sake of the investors or the environmentalists.

[@berserkergandhi8492]

The world has been running out of oil in the next 40years since the 70s. As technology improves we can extract deeper reserves and in the totality there's enough oil to run at least another century. The only answer is fusion

[@robinsmith8846]

@@berserkergandhi8492 I agree..but people are afraid of fusion and have NIMBY syndrome.

[@joescott]

Yeah, I think the cost will lead energy producers to more renewable sources than scarcity. Although for sure the planet will run out eventually, I think it'll last longer than a few decades.

[@chrisparkin6894]

Joe, did you include decommissioning costs? The nuclear costs seem rather low. Plus you didn't mention that we already have options for recycling wind turbines.

[@imakevideos5377]

Can’t imagine decommissioning nuclear is cheap

[@letsdance8469]

@@imakevideos5377 Yep, about the same price as building it (after inflation) which really messes up the costings if they haven't been factored in.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

"Lifetime" costs calculated for LCOE usually include decommissioning, so I think it has been, especially as the Uranium fuel is actually relatively cheap (for the amount of power it produces) compared to fossil fuels so seems about right.

[@musaran2]

@@sergarlantyrell7847Problem is nuclear decommissioning costs were often calculated way back... when waste & radioactivity were not considered a big problem.

[@miningbruno]

Almost all of the turbines' parts can be recycled, except the propellers/blades; they're made out of cured epoxy (over a fibreglass mesh), and as such there's no known way to "de-cure" said epoxy back into a form in which it can be re-used.

[@stevenspizick9341]

Hi Joe, you missed talking about Pumped-storage hydroelectricity (PSH), or pumped hydroelectric energy storage (PHES).

[@matthewglaser1812]

I was hoping you might cover travelling wave reactors and molten salt reactors such as liquid fluoride thorium reactors.

[@AdamSmith-qu5bv]

I really want to see LFTRs in full glory at some point in my life. They have so much potential.

[@montithered4741]

I think LFTR reactors are factored into the range of LCOE.

[@k.bellingham8335]

Because they don't exist?! Except in a lab somewhere. How's that for a reason Joe didn't cover them? And then of course if they did exist, there's the little problem of radioactive waste! oh and then the risk of catastrophic melt down. Shall i continue?

[@AdamSmith-qu5bv]

@@k.bellingham8335 I advise you don't continue. LFTRs cannot have a catastrophic meltdown, if the temperature raises too much, a safety plug melts and the fuel is separated from the source of neutrons. The waste they produce becomes safe after about 300 years, relatively brief compared to pre-existing nuclear power waste (~10000 years), making it easy to store and keep track of. They were proven to work decades ago, and are being re-evaluated and researched further in a few different countries. I think: the more people that know about these things, the better. Good public opinion leads to more funding, and LFTRs will lead to dirt cheap energy worldwide.

[@k.bellingham8335]

@@AdamSmith-qu5bv I stand by first statement, they don't exist. May I suggest you go stand next to that "'safe radiation" for the next 300 years.

[@tasmanianbadger]

Hi. It was good. Taking you at your word: ‘what did I leave out?’ Well, you touched on externalities. When you factor in how destructive fossil fuels are in extraction, transport, processing, transporting again, and then burning... they become economically unsustainable. You touched on this, and there are lots of sources to describe the details. What you didn’t touch on was topology. Most of us are connected to a power grid. These are insanely large, complex - and above all - inefficient networks. When electricity goes through wires, it has to overcome resistance. Most power generated (and the attendant pollution) is lost as ‘transmission losses’. Decentralised power generation is likely going to be the path of the future. Big power projects cost big money... and when the go down, large numbers of people and businesses are left powerless. On site production, or even micro grids are profoundly more efficient, the cost is more equitably distributed, and outages are localised rather than widespread. The economics of decentralised power generation combined with charging for pollution... it means coal and gas aren’t in the running. Increasingly, you will see more and more Virtual Power Projects (VPP). These are networks of generation and storage contributing to large scale grids. As more and more climate change events wipe out whole power grids, we’ll increasingly replace the centralised grids with regions of more economically sustainable on site generation options. Cheers. Be safe, be well.

[@FalkonNightsdale]

Problem is, that smaller the grid, lower innate stability it has. If you run (or stop running) an 900 W kettle in 1 MW grid, the extra load is minimal and dissolve through the grid. If you do same in 10 kW grid, you'll blow it up. So you need batteries (a lot of them) to balance it out and BMS that could drain them fast enough to prevent blackout.

[@tasmanianbadger]

@@FalkonNightsdale. Absolutely. It’s why decentralised hasn’t - historically - been an option. There are now, however, a number of technologies that can stabilise and store micro grid level fluctuations. In Australia, for example, there is a particularly interesting company called Redflow who have some good tech on the market. Likewise, there is a crowd in Ireland (maybe Wales?) Doing some seriously cool suspended weight batteries in mine shafts. There are lots of possibilities. The breadth of the arsenal is why decentralisation is kind of inevitable. The key is generation goes to storage and consumer draws off storage. Even with storage inefficiencies, we’ll still be far ahead of transmission losses from centralised grids,

[@FalkonNightsdale]

@@tasmanianbadger You probably mean Graviticity from Edinburgh. Well they made waves and went silent, which is understandable, if you take into account, that their proposal may look good on paper, but is terrible in real world - way worse, than any transmission loss. The thing is, gravity storage is hindered by the need of MASSIVE construction, that either holds them or allows for (un)docking them, with all the mechanical parts lowering effectivity significantly. At the end of day, it allows only minor energy storage - If I guesstimate it correctly, 1 kWh equals 3,6 MJ and thus roughly 10t block going down 36 meters. Which means, that for my 20 kWh powerbank, they would need to drop 10t block 720 meters. Well actually it would be close to 900 meters due to low effectivity.

[@tasmanianbadger]

@@FalkonNightsdale. I think I’ve heard of them, and indeed might be confusing them... the crowd I’m thinking of is - overly simplistically - using artesian water to fill tanks that fill and drop, continuously topping up heavy duty capacitors. They were/are trying to offset peaker generators. So they don’t need vast storage... they just need very fast response time. Likewise, a lot of artesian water sites have surprisingly quick refill rates. The tech I’m thinking is not scalable to large demands.

[@tasmanianbadger]

Nup. Scratch that. I was combining gravitricity and the water mob. It’s been too many years since I read the info. Old age strikes us all... the crowd I’m thinking of with water is for remote hard to power sites, not peakers. It’s for powering switches and gates. Sigh.

[@PsychoticusRex]

The hard work is taking that graph on LCOE and projecting it over TIME, things are changing, labour rates, inflation, transportation, etcetera which affects fuel rates, transmission costs and so on...it's BIG engineering, have fun with that.

[@jpedrosc98]

Great remark! I can't believe I didn't think of transmission costs while watching the video. That alone can massively favor solar in certain locations!

[@whichri79]

right, I was hoping for LCOE historical data plots so we could see a 2041 year predictions (at least)

[@PsychoticusRex]

@@whichri79 he teased it at beginning of episode so I was surprised he didn't do it.

[@robertweekes5783]

Congrats on the big 1M milestone !! 🎉

[@tomkelly8827]

Hmm, I want to add something but I think you covered it pretty well there. Combinations are interesting though. CSP and natural gas go well together to make a single baseload station. Offshore wind can be combined with hydrogen stored on the sea floor for baseload power. Hydro dams can be the peaker plants for solar and wind arrays where the water gets released when power is needed (no need to pump the water uphill, rain does that)

[@AlanW]

The problem with many of these calculations is they do not factor in the externalities, like climate change, and health problems from mining. I think because it's extremely hard to do, or there's just no will to do so.

[@eclipsenow5431]

@No rude Trump lost the election so there's no point trolling

[@chapter4travels]

Try to calculate the externalities of not using fossil fuels.

[@nathancolgan4296]

Many new nuclear reactor designs can run on recycle nuclear waste

[@abcrasshadow9341]

That is pretty cool!

[@doritoification]

It won't be long my friend :) Lots of progress in the space

[@Munkenba]

If that's actually true then you won't be getting very much energy out of it, and you certainly couldn't recycle the waste from already recycled matter. Trouble is that as soon as you split atoms, whatever comes out the other end has to slip further and further up the nuclear binding energy chart. It's like squeezing a sponge, eventually it's dry and you're left with a sponge you still can't touch for 100,000 years.

[@user-jp7tw3sd3x]

There are old reactors using fast neutrons that can consume the waste. The problem is that these reactors are fit to enrich weapon grade material. I guess you are talking about LFTR that use slow neutrons.

[@lostintime8651]

I posted the same. And we have so much of it.

[@brettruss3359]

I love you joe, been here since you had 15k subs.

[@felipedigregorio3948]

I'd say that what this video missed is the trend of variation in the cost struxtures and theoric limits of efficiencies for each power source. It would show which energy sources are becoming the new challengers for the next decades

[@ia3630]

Joe, an interesting side to add to that "economic desirability" analysis of fossil fuel would be estimated annual costs of their impacts, like respiratory illnesses treatment cost nationwide and workforce downtime and lifespan. Even if a government doesn't offer those health services that's a household budget that could be stimulating other parts of the economy and a workforce that could be more productive.

[@MDP1702]

That should definitely be taken into account with system LCOE costs, although probably is never done.

[@northernmetalworker]

Contrary to what people may think, lots of those big oil companies are almost obsessive over workplace safety rules. I know imperial oil is a real stickler for safety rules.

[@magtovi]

THIS! The problem with this equations is that they are shortsighted (as usual with capitalism). They should include the measurable costs of the known consequences (and adding new ones as we find more), the healthcare ones you're talking about plus the now known costs of climate change.

[@LittleJohnAB1]

The geothermal drilling using the oilfield tech was on the news here in Alberta not to long ago. The University of Alberta was also running a study of capturing lithium from produced water from old wells.

[@allancook1890]

Eavor-Loop. This could actually work because it is a closed loop, isolated from the nasty mineral-rich fluids that cause so many problems with current geo-thermal. Could work any where in the world. Normal geo-thermal gradient 25-30 degrees celsius per 1000m depth, so 5-6000m is 150deg. C

[@adoidpea4456]

I really enjoyed today's episode mate highly interesting! 😎🇬🇧😎

[@suzannest.pierre9215]

Hi, great videos! I have solar power at my property, 100%. I want to point out that I made lifestyle changes to accommodate my desire to have free power and to use as much renewable power as possible. First was to educate myself. If you purchase and install yourself, the costs go down significantly and it is certainly not hard. Second was to really consider what is important in life. I did not need a dryer, I can hang laundry. I do not need to stockpile food, so just a tiny refrigerator and a garden. Not a single item plugged in "on standby". I think we, as a society, simply use too much power.

[@nenmaster5218]

Energy-Topic-Vdeos of Sci-Channels are extremly important to watch, so here, a bit random, but please take some Supplementary videos from me: Adam Something, PBS-Space-Time and Real Engineering did great on this topic. Oh, and Some More News.

[@jaroslavhancovsky3249]

I'm sorry to have to point this out, but the "diamond nuclear waste" batteries are pseudo-science. It's not something being researched or even considered. In addition, I feel it would have been relevant to point out the EXTREME energy density of nuclear power, to underscore just how little fuel (and therefore mining) is used and how little waste is produced, and how small the percentage of that waste is actually dangerous. Kudos however for pointing out the differences in land use.

[@MrDmadness]

Nuclear power is the only way forward at present

[@michaeljames5936]

If Nuclear waste is such a small problem, why won't any company, or government, allow, it's long term safe handling/disposal, to be factored into costs of proposed projects. How come the first waste produced, is still waiting for a solution?

[@davisbradford7438]

@@michaeljames5936 because the waste needs to be placed in a facility that can survive thousands of years while also somehow keeping intelligent lifeforms aware of the dangers within when societal collapse happens every couple decades and major communication variations happen every few hundred years. That is expensive.

[@scotshermer6711]

@@michaeljames5936 because that is a political discussion and not a scientific one. The government (our government, getting more socialist by the moment) has no real interest in doing the best for the most people. They are only interested in two things: Keeping us divided, and keeping us dependent on the government. Without those two conditions they have no hope of controlling us. And it's not about doing good, it's about control. Period.

[@brandy2378]

what about thorium reactors? could this be a contender

[@billspear6396]

"We Could Have Saved The Earth, But We Were Too Damned Cheap." Kurt Vonnegut

[@SynthhInHD]

Something worth mentioning is that radioactive deposits produce heat so geothermal doesn't necessarily require the presence of magmatic heat, and as you mentioned, the geothermal gradient is 25C per km in depth, so the deeper you go, the hotter it gets.

[@pasqualedipaola9791]

Love this guy

[@mcmu0040]

I'd love to hear about advances in breeder reactor technology as a way to deal with the waste issue of nuclear. Great video though.

[@Bill_CBR]

Think LFTR.

[@richardbaird1452]

@@Bill_CBR Or PRISIM, which has already had a long run prototype in EBR-II. I doubt LFTR will be physically manifested before a workable Fusion solution is on the table and that will make it obsolete.

[@paulbedichek2679]

@@Bill_CBR LFTR has a way of reducing nuclear waste, they are not built to use up waste, the only LFTR extant is the tiny 2MW Chinese version, meanwhile the world produces 450GW continuously of clean nuclear power, there are thermal spectrum reactors which can burn waste, but the fast reactors are better suited. Even fast reactors don't necessarily burn waste, the Natrium system doesn't burn waste, it uses fuel far more efficiently,Bill Gates wants these to proliferate worldwide, and we don't want people to use them for weapon material.

[@paulbedichek2679]

@@richardbaird1452 People still use wood to get energy, along with more modern techniques, we will have fusion plants running as well as fission plants.

[@richardbaird1452]

@@paulbedichek2679, Once fusion works, provided it is cost competitive, any fission plant designed primarily for power production that is above the size of the smallest viable fusion plant is a dead end and won't be built. There may be some niches such as ultra small remote sites where fusion can't be made to work due to small scale and burning already existing waste, but other than that, why would anyone take on or for that matter allow others to take on the waste issues and proliferation risks if they don't need to. Fission for large scale power generation is a necessary evil, not a godsend. If fusion works in the next 10 years or so, I could see building any fission plant that isn't a waste burner or fits a unique scale niche being banned world-wide. That's one of the reasons I think OPG made a huge mistake in their choice. Wood is not a good analogy because any single individual can do it. Think more along the lines of a coal fired steam locomotive, which really only exist today for nostalgic reasons and my guess is we won't allow nostalgia to be justification for a fission plant.

[@armynation31B5V5P]

Good idea.. Geo fuel was used on planet Krypton also. I heard it from a friend who works at the The Daily Planet paper

[@dutchflats]

LOL.......Very Good!

[@brandongehrke8943]

I always love your videos, definitely something I look forward to! I think there's some points you made that many people ignore, such as the dropping costs of solar and other renewables that are seeing many improvements. So many people ignore this and are so focused on solar as it was decades ago. There was a bit that sounded odd at the end though, when you talked about the impact on jobs and whatnot. I don't think that many people are going to lose their jobs personally, considering that there's so much in our world that's dependent on oil beyond just being a fuel. Until we find economically sound alternatives for most oil-based products, we can expect to see it around for a lot longer.

[@nenmaster5218]

Energy-Topic-Vdeos of Sci-Channels are extremly important to watch, so here, a bit random, but please take some Supplementary videos form me: Adam Something, PBS-Space-Time and Real Engineering did great on this topic. Oh, and Some More News.

[@gysbertdeklerk]

Do another video where you actually do take into account the waste product disposal etc. I'll love to see that chart.

[@andrew20146]

Hey Joe, you might find RethinkX's recent video on solar+wind+battery interesting. They propose to solve the intermittency problem by having a relatively small amount of battery power and overproduce solar to reduce the risk of falling short. The excess or curtailed power can be used for industrial processes (like making hydrogen, ammonia, etc. for chemical industry).

[@dejayrezme8617]

Do you mean "Rethinking Energy 2020-2030: 100% Solar, Wind, and Batteries is Just the Beginning"? That sounds interesting because that should be the way to go, we only need to find ways to make use of the overcapacity. Thermal batteries for winter (water tanks) for homes would also be relatively easy and cheap to do.

[@hi-gf5yl]

To me, it seems rather risky if you have a business that only produces when the grid has excess energy to do so. We could overproduce with fossil fuel generation right now yet we don't and instead match demand, so I'm skeptical of renewables being somehow different.

[@dejayrezme8617]

@@hi-gf5yl It certainly wouldn't fit for every business, but things like aluminium refining or smelting requires a lot of energy. if you could get this energy for near free, even if it isn't 100% guaranteed could make sense. Similar to growing crops you sometimes get more yield and sometimes less. But you'd need to design both engineering and business around this.

[@andrew20146]

@@hi-gf5yl renewables have a marginal cost of producing energy of zero. Fossil fuel plants have to pay for fuel. You could have a business that makes desalinated water and adds it to a reservoir. Would you take a 50% discount on your power bill if the utility could tell you which 70% of hours in a year you can operate?

[@paulbedichek2679]

@@dejayrezme8617 No, Aluminum refining is so energy intensive , they only do it where they have cheap energy, either hydro or mostly coal.

[@buckenfuzz]

Based on what I learned in a EE 463 class I took, this is spot on. Fossil fuels and especially natural gas will be with us for a long time.

[@sebastienjanssens9825]

no they won't, because the CO2 they generate will end life as we know it

[@buckenfuzz]

@@sebastienjanssens9825 it's not going to "end all life". At least not in the way nuclear war or a meteor impact would. Climate change will slowly erode away at modern civilization. I'm guessing by the time we finally get the global economy steered towards something more sustainable, the effects will be undeniable to everyone and unfortunately wreaking havoc annually.

[@benr.4238]

Maybe. All it will take is some breakthrough in one tech or another and everything can change. Look at how fast cell phones became an everyday item, or the internet.

[@sebastienjanssens9825]

@@buckenfuzz i get what you are saying, and you seem to take things more reasonably than i do, but i can't help but be very worried about what is lying under that permafrost that's melting. also maybe Ben R. is right, there might be a breakthrough. I sure hope so.

[@buckenfuzz]

@@benr.4238 cell phones and the internet are cheap commodities, perfect for free market growth. Power Stations, no matter what form, are colossal projects requiring huge investment and long construction times. Unless we get a real mandate + funding from uncle sam, the free market is going to drag its feet changing over. As stated in the video: free market capitalism is driven by profit and costs, not the betterment of mankind.

[@cpowerbpower3339]

During my Mech-Eng degree I did a unit on sustainability, and I have to say this is good stuff! In a paper I submitted I concluded that Fossil fuels will be a constant part of our energy grid for a long time, but the diversity of our energy generation sources would increase over time. This is a natural evolutionary process. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for power generation.

[@paulbedichek2679]

Right,but if we were interested in lowering Carbon,we'd put a price on it, this would make RE pretty uncompetitive as nuclear is already an inexpensive energy source .World hydro has plummeted with the never-ending droughts and the EU now knows the wind can stop for months on end.

[@YannMetalhead]

Great video.

[@Disobeyedtoast]

My friend is working on a wave energy startup that seems pretty nifty. It uses boats to harness the energy and he wants it to be used in conjunction with offshore wind turbines since they create perfect disruption to harness the energy.

[@PolicyThwonk]

"The picture is never as clear as I would like it to be" - life in a nutshell.

[@abdelwahabnassim6281]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnTcpp6Nqptkg9U

[@jamielonsdale3018]

Yup, even 8K isn't enough. I want to be able to see in 64K. (I'm on about my eyes, not my TV, I only have a 1080p TV because my 4K TV got broken when someone crashed their car through my living room and destroyed the wall it was mounted to) and I think it would be cool as hell to be able to take in 8x the amount of detail. If anyone knows of an animal with ~64K vision, let me know :D

[@ivanognjanovic2194]

HBO Go in a nutshell

[@cooking_bakingg]

@@jamielonsdale3018 wander what the most P has been on a screen

[@Ubersnuber]

Deep breh

[@BaconKiller360]

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity is a a current and well researched method of energy storage without the usage of batteries

[@nenmaster5218]

Energy-Topic-Vdeos of Sci-Channels are extremly important to watch, so here, a bit random, but please take some Supplementary videos from me: Adam Something, PBS-Space-Time and Real Engineering did great on this topic. Oh, and Some More News.

[@bradleybunch7873]

Joe, one area that you left out is the various types of Waste To Energy: Incinerators, rotary kilns, pyrolysis, plasma arc, and so on.

[@ivailoi123]

Joe I know everything about Thorium Nuclear Reactors. I will be happy to help with the video

[@masalli]

Joe made video about Thrium reactors few years ago: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jn7YqZ1-gbGeZqc

[@f36443]

@@masalli update would be nice

[@ivailoi123]

It would be great if Tim gets hooked up in Thorium power the same as rockets. And get his buddy Elon involved. This is the technology that if solved by someone like Elon could literally solve climate change

[@Ronan1692]

@@ivailoi123 Agreed the good news but it is happening as are reactors that run nuclear waste. Granted faster would be better.

[@ivailoi123]

@@Ronan1692 what we need is scale. The machine that builds the machine. 100 reactors a year

[@clinicallycompressed1233]

someone needs to finalise fusion reactors already

[@michaelnord9081]

Why? Than anti-nuclear fundamentalists won't allow us to build those either. The details of the science are not their strong suit.

[@davidelliott5843]

One day they might get more energy out than they put in. But it will never be low cost and will still generate nuclear waste. On top of that, the fuel (deuterium) is extremely difficult to refine

[@username65585]

1. Wait 30 years 2. Repeat

[@tomspencer1364]

@@davidelliott5843 How is deuterium difficult to refine? A set of distillations more expensive than making gasoline but the energy return is a million fold greater than that. Except of course that there is now no way to get any energy out of a system greater than what you put in.

[@theopinionatedbystander]

Great video..

[@christopherfitch3347]

One big and costly problem with ocean wind turbines you missed is an issue that's been discovered more recently. The ocean spray and particulate degrades the leading edge of the blade which reduces efficiency over time. It's expensive to patch and doesn't really fix the issue cause the laminate on the fiberglass begins to peel and rot away. Replacing the blades is really expensive and they don't have a good cost-effective alternative yet.