A Faster Way to Get to a Clean Energy Future | Ramez Naam | TED

[@glennr9913]

Every parking lot should be shaded by solar panels. We should never have to park in the baking hot sun. Nobody would complain about that.

[@5353Jumper]

Definitely, commercial rooftop and parking lot solar sounds so much better than doing grid scale projects outside the city. Less land use Closer to consumers Higher redundancy Owned by consumers reducing costs Take influence away from grid scale oligopolies

[@nyi2ag]

True. Expressways also should be shaded by solar panels. Expressway solar will save a lot of land.

[@thorsrensen3162]

I have been working on an idea which could change the situation. It is a special road material which is made like a big solar panel, so all roads can be transpofrmed to polar panels. I can not reveil more now as I want to have it patended.

[@adrianjeffreys1238]

From South Africa. A retailer called Makro owned by Wal-Mart has installed solar panels on the 1 hectare car park. Brilliant example as all shoppers see it.🎉

[@lifeistooshort649]

Parking lots will be irrelevant once autonomous cars take you wherever you want to go for a fraction the cost of an Uber or taxi.

[@rmar127]

Agrovoltaics are one of the answers to land availability. Many of the vegetables that we eat would have been understory plants in nature. Study after study has proven that they attain larger crop yields when grown under solar panel arrays. Furthermore, the shade reduces evaporation and therefore reduces water usage.

[@adrianjeffreys1238]

Your vegetables only require about 4 hours light per day in South Africa. Africa sunshine is quite strong! Even in a shade house at 30% shade cloth you don't need the sun all day.😊

[@willeisinga2089]

Energy Farmers with Solar and agriculture. One hectare Solar produces 1 million kWh a year. A kWh cost last year one Euro. Profit one million euro per Hectare

[@ErvigHenry]

That's a really interesting insight about agrovoltaics! It's great to see how we can integrate renewable energy into different areas like agriculture. By using the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series, we can also bring clean, reliable power to our outdoor adventures and homes. It's a versatile and powerful solution for camping and backup power needs. Have you tried it?

[@prilep5]

Finally somebody who talks about solutions not just pointing about gloomy doomy future

[@rockets4kids]

This is every TED talk ever.

[@valentino1646]

Watch more Ted talks bud, this isn't a new thing, more like the standard

[@globalvillage423]

Finally some optimism.

[@antoine_marchal]

One problem though. Copper mines used to have a 20% yield. Now they have a 0.8% yield. We are running out of minerals to transport this electricity, I am not convinced by this simplistic solution (i.e. build thousands of km of transmission lines to bring the power where it's needed).

[@globalvillage423]

@@antoine_marchal Copper has been in use at least 10,000 years, but more than 95% of all copper ever mined and smelted has been extracted since 1900. As with many natural resources, the total amount of copper on Earth is vast, with around 1014 tons in the top kilometer of Earth's crust, which is about 5 million years' worth at the current rate of extraction. However, only a tiny fraction of these reserves is economically viable with present-day prices and technologies. Estimates of copper reserves available for mining vary from 25 to 60 years, depending on core assumptions such as the growth rate. Recycling is a major source of copper in the modern world. Because of these and other factors, the future of copper production and supply is the subject of much debate, including the concept of peak copper, analogous to peak oil. The price of copper has historically been unstable, and its price increased from the 60-year low of US$0.60/lb (US$1.32/kg) in June 1999 to $3.75 per pound ($8.27/kg) in May 2006. It dropped to $2.40/lb ($5.29/kg) in February 2007, then rebounded to $3.50/lb ($7.71/kg) in April 2007. In February 2009, weakening global demand and a steep fall in commodity prices since the previous year's highs left copper prices at $1.51/lb ($3.32/kg). Between September 2010 and February 2011, the price of copper rose from £5,000 a metric ton to £6,250 a metric ton.

[@steverichmond7142]

A lot of nimby campaigns are promoted and funded by the fossil fuel industry. I worked for Shell and the amount spent was unbelievable.

[@jetfu400]

Quote how much you know they spend.. Give us number

[@steverichmond7142]

In the years 2004 - 2007 the 'slush fund' received 834,727,718. This was spent in UK and other parts of Western Europe. Over and above this amounts were given to Nigerian politicians. I cannot hack this section of their accounts.

[@StarBoundFables]

Brilliant presentation, Ramez, thank you!

[@windhunters]

Great speech! Thank you for your support of solar energy. My company installing wind and solar since 2005, and I remember the time when solar panels were 15 times more expensive:)

[@Zosu22]

@@austindenotter19 I can't remember when fossil fuels weren't subsidized.

[@jimcalemaxamed2953]

Markana

[@Dgfrmxon]

In 2002 I went into nuclear engineering for a college major. It might sound ridiculous, but climate change really was a motivating factor in that decision... also some concerns about peak oil, which didn't age well. I perceived that renewables were not sufficient for the problem. When the evidence changed, I changed my position. I am very sad that new nuclear builds have not panned out economically, but I can't deny it. Solar is the only type of energy that gets built on budget because the panels are all identical, you'd have to be a major idiot to project that wrong. Yeah, managing solar availability is hard, but the costs are too cheap to avoid, and the problem is solvable. Organizations that refuse to entertain this will go the way of the dodo.

[@beautifulgirl219]

A peer-reviewed study in 2017, undertaken by the Energy Innovation Reform Project (EIRP), with data collection and analysis conducted by the Energy Options Network on its behalf, compiled extensive data from eight advanced nuclear companies that are actively pursuing commercialization of plants of at least 250 MWe in size. Individual reactor units ranged from 48 MWe to 1650 MWe. At the lower end of the potential cost range, these plants could present the lowest cost generation options available, making nuclear power “effectively competitive with any other option for power generation. At the same time, this could enable a significant expansion of the nuclear footprint to the parts of the world that need clean energy the most - and can least afford to pay high price premiums for it.” The companies included in the study were Elysium Industries, GE Hitachi (using only publicly available information), Moltex Energy, NuScale Power, Terrestrial Energy, ThorCon Power, Transatomic Power, and X‐energy. LCOE ranged from $36/MWh to $90/MWh, with an average of $60/MWh.

[@hopliterati61]

@@beautifulgirl219 The sad truth is that the NRC artificially makes the costs of nuclear sky high. The fact that NRC doesn't consider anything but safety in its review pushes the costs to get new designs (ie. - all of the companies you mentioned) into the billions. You can always be "safer". In the face of the NRC - how can we ever make progress on climate change using nuclear? Fun fact - how many new designs has the NRC approved since its creation? Answer - 0. Nuclear is stuck in the past - I don't know why this is acceptable to the US Govt or the American people.

[@beautifulgirl219]

@@hopliterati61 Last Energy, a U.S.-based micro modular nuclear technology firm and project developer, has secured power purchase agreements (PPAs) for 34 PWR-20 small modular reactor (SMR) units with four industrial partners in the UK and Poland. The deals, which represent a combined $18.9 billion in power sales, mark “the largest pipeline of new nuclear power plants under development in the world,” Last Energy said. The Washington D.C.-based company on March 22 said it signed PPAs for 10 20-MWe plants with Katowice Special Economic Zone (KSSE), a 1997-established special economic zone in southwestern Poland that hosts 540 companies. “The agreement represents over USD $4.3 billion in electricity sales over the lifetime of the contract and USD $1 billion in inward energy and infrastructure investment in the zone,” the company noted. The first of the 10 plants supplying power to KSSE could be commissioned in 2026, it said.

[@jonathantan2469]

There is one (but not just only one) key advantage though. One single nuclear reactor with a 1.6GW nameplate capacity will produce 12000 to 13000 GWh of electricity per year... as much as several thousand wind turbines scattered across the land. Moreover, that electricity is at a predictable & controllable production rate, with little need for battery storage & intercontinental transmission lines. If you look at the time it takes to build a reactor (7 years to 15 years), that is just about the same time taken to build several thousand wind turbines, if not less. And we don't even need to have a 100% nuclear supplied grid. An amount that can meet nearly all or all of the minimum demand of the grid would meet the first stages of the goal. Even better if one has hydropower resources, which can be combined together (examples include Sweden, Canada, Finland, and Switzerland).

[@hopliterati61]

@@beautifulgirl219 I actually heard that factoid about "no new tech being approved by NRC" from a speech Bret Kuglemass (CEO of last energy) - he specifically avoided any new technology with his solution to make it possible to navigate the NRC approval process. And yes, I'm very happy about it!

[@Daniel-Six]

I went to college with Mez at UIUC ages ago. We used to play Dungeons & Dragons and get hammered on the weekends. It's a trip to see him again all these years hence.

[@HaroldBrice]

Daniel Six: A glowing recommendation for why anyone should listen to his regurgitation.. I call BS on the whole renewable crap. Get educated on CO2. The current levels of CO2 are barely enough to sustain plant life at a level needed to feed all of us. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and residual CO2 is not directly proportional to the amount produced and released into our air. This is not some video game and only morons buy in to the bad gas idea.

[@davidsiminoff7940]

If there ever was Must See TV, this is it.

[@mv80401]

A key reason for silicon solar's success is that the silicon chip industry paved its way in both material science and manufacturing optimization.

[@globalvillage423]

Something seemingly unrelated is responsible for success of solar.

[@yashwardhansable5187]

​@@globalvillage423 it's weird how the world works...

[@globalvillage423]

@@yashwardhansable5187 Look up interdisciplinarity or transdiciplinarity.

[@globalvillage423]

There are better materials like graphene and perovskites.

[@guntermaik9404]

What oxford study are you referring to in 9:37 min?

[@vaughanmoody]

GREAT talk. Awesome info, and very well delivered! Thank you for what you do Ramez!

[@schonezukunft607]

Every single politician on the world should listen to this speech!

[@neilifill4819]

I like what was said in this talk. Great information that’s got actual solutions attached. I’m concerned that, in the US, special interest groups who are vested in fossil energy spend much time, money, and other resources to influence the leaders who can enact these types of solutions. It’s to the point where ideas like these are tossed into political talking points and dismissed to garner votes. I’m not sure that Europe is very different.

[@youdonthavetoreadthispost.5850]

Great teaching on a major and also very current range of topics. Many thanks if we don't support the grid ? The grid won't support us either. 10Kw Solar on my roof

[@lindam.1502]

I have 10kW solar AND grid connection.

[@CARL557511]

I and some of my neighbors have declared we own the Renewable Energy Rights and Air Rights on our properties here in West Virginia. The future is coming to where these rights will be similar to mineral rights.

[@35natiweber]

In this context, Brazil serves as an excellent illustration. With a landmass comparable to that of the United States, Brazil boasts an interconnected transmission system that enables the country to fulfill a staggering 80% of its electricity demand through renewable sources. How normally it works: the North region produces more energy than it consumes, especially during the wet season, thus most of the excess of energy is exported to the Southeast and a minor part is exported to the Northeast. In the Northeast region has a higher energy production during the dry season, which is the period with highest wind potential, thus in this period it exports the excess of energy to the Southeast-Midwest region. In its turn, the Southeast region imports energy from the North during the wet period and from the Northeast during the dry period and exports energy to the South region. Brazil's most populous region and one with the highest demand for electricity is the Southeast-Midwest at the same time is the region with highest hydropower and hydro storage installed potential. The South region's need is partially met by local resources, with the remaining portion coming from imports from the Southeast, particularly during the wet season, which coincides with the South's dry season.

[@hendraw1918]

I am interested in building solar power plants, but my dad works in large scale export of coal. He still believes that coal is the cheapest energy there is for the next decade. I will show him this video!

[@jhunt5578]

Tony Seba from RethinkX was not surprised

[@benediktkaufer8194]

Awesome talk. Thanks. I just installed solar and I'm saving a lot of money now 💰😊 Go solar (wind and battery)!

[@xyzv8640]

Its all about the money, eh?

[@krautergarten4529]

U had to generate ur own energy because public energy got to expensive for u! That just the wrong way. Renewables made public energy so expensive that u couldn't aford it any more 😂

[@andreazabranskyrodriguez5443]

Thank you, it was a very informative video and had clear data about renewables.

[@smkhaury]

When the costs of different kinds of energy are calculated, is lifespan and replacement taken into account? Is there a comprehensive graph about this?

[@darkisland04]

Very good points! One of the common complaints about wind turbines and solar panels is: "You can't make wind turbines and solar panels using wind turbines and solar panels". This is true----but only so far. There are new CHEMICAL processes (not smelting) being developed, as we speak, for producing both steel and solar panels. And with minimal, if any, energy usage. Presumably this could be used to make the tempered glass that is required as well. It's evident that most----and probably all----problems can be worked through, given enough time, effort, and resources. The environmental movement has NEVER had to resort to its' various scare tactics to advance this technology. Their "crying 'Wolf' " tactics have always been proven false---and will be again. Every time.

[@ErnieTracey]

We have the technology, with the cooperation and the right perspective it is possible. "Build it and they will come"

[@손우현-t5d]

I`m a korean middle school student and i`m studing english to study abroad. This chnnel help me a lot to improve english skill. Thanks

[@viablerenewable1638]

One has to change from expecting Green to be able to pay for itself, but has to enable changing the value of land by consuming an obscene amount of electricity to enable getting a byproduct of potable water!

[@ARand1696]

That's because you're enjoying the benefits of economies of scale and have practically outsourced all the emissions associated with wind turbines and solar panels.

[@bobwallace9753]

What???? You are attempting to defend fossil fuels by claiming meaning emissions from wind turbines and solar panels while ignoring the massive external costs of fossil fuels? Fossil fuel emission costs are born by the public. And it's a tremendous amount that we pay year after year.

[@alexanderlvt]

The term "clean energy " is not correct. Windturbine blades are impossible to recycle. Solarpanels also are a huge problem in recycling. This is not a longterm solution

[@robwatson3600]

@@alexanderlvt What energy resource is clean. Each and every resource has a massive at scale impact at construction, operation or decommissioning. You have to look at the total impact and where the impact is felt. Emissions cannot be contained, but solid waste can be even if it must be processed later.

[@alexanderlvt]

@ my hope is on Thorium reactors.

[@megawavez]

If so cheap, why do the countries with the highest rate of installed capacity (Denmark & Germany) have the highest energy prices? The renewables will continue to make inroads into the energy markets but there are still pressing issues including: intermittency, wildlife impingement (wind turbines), additional costs due to transmission across large distances, etc. We'll be needing the existing infrastructure for awhile.

[@PowerUnicorn]

Easy to understand --- the hype: the projected prices per kWh by the "experts" are lifecycle cost projections, what the average cost is over the life of the project (20 - 30 years driven by country economic policies). The reality is that as solar and wind do not "pay for fuel" the great majority of their cost is in asset cost (cost of development) which is paid TODAY -- so you pay a lot NOW until the project is paid off and then the remaining years the production is really cheap as all you pay are taxes and ongoing maintenance.

[@megawavez]

@@PowerUnicorn Well, seeing as we still at the early stages and will need to install yet to be developed bulk energy storage systems and also expensive long distance transmission lines I imagine those high prices might remain... sticky.

[@PowerUnicorn]

@@megawavez Absolutely --- anytime a transition has two systems running in parallel the final cost is probably higher. Once the transition is complete I hope we have a more stable and cost effective system for all.

[@nickkacures2304]

And we are still seeing remarkable progress in solar energy technology development like perovskites and battery storage the transition to an all electric economy is coming

[@calvinator2525]

I agree but why do I want to build the power for the coast

[@LawIV]

Nationalize railroads. Electrify them. Co-locate transmission on those rights of way

[@andymetzen]

As someone from Taiwan, I have difficulty placing my trust in those who promote misinformation aligned with the Chinese Communist Party's narrative. I kindly request that you reconsider the inclusion of Taiwan in your map of China, as it is a misrepresentation that I find distasteful.

[@valerkis8280]

Long live the republic

[@marnig9185]

It's way compelexer😂

[@DonGivani]

Facts 💯

[@SuzanaLascu]

right. consider this: there's no Taiwan or China (as the mental constructs they represent) if the entire species gets wiped out within a few decades. seriously get over your petty geopolitics.

[@courtneyliu]

Agreed. Never seen a map like that before. How bizarre that of all the available maps of China, that’s the one selected?

[@GuitarCoast]

Simple and brilliant.

[@NamekGregory]

Great speech indeed, however the graph on time 0:52 may be questionable if the cost of solar will drop to 0.2 $/W. No one may drop the facts on time 1:30 where we see the solar cost 0.4 $/W, but on these world where everything goes up and up, only artificially the cost goes up only on presentations. Peoples pay more every day, this has been the past, this is the present, and these may be the future. Then today solar panels really are very good, but intermittent and then need storing and after this need distribution which are needed to provide dispatchable energy. The speaker really is right, but the real life is not what investors pay to build with low cost, the real life is what consumers pay on the bill, and so let speak for the "price", then the cost and then the profit. On addition to all the above why not speak and compare these solar energy or wind energy with secure and abundant geothermal energy, or nuclear energy and see the capital needed for kwhr and not for power, an investment which work with 93% or higher efficiency may be more attractive than an investment like solar which has efficiency lower than 15%, or wind with efficiency 25%.

[@bartcox274]

in Nederland the 2023 challenge is season storage of this cheap clean energy.

[@mrdeanvincent]

Do we have enough minerals & materials to support this transition to multiple continental renewables grids? Where are those minerals & materials located? What are the geopolitical, humanitarian and environmental costs of extraction and transportation? How renewable are renewables? Should our primary focus be on using significantly *less* energy (and materials)? At the very least it would make the problem smaller...

[@Ant.3499]

Yes. Using less energy is large part of the solution that is rarely mentioned, and likely much easier to implement.

[@borealphoto]

We can't use less energy and still have economic growth.

[@mrdeanvincent]

@@borealphoto You might be right. Have you ever thought about how absurd it is to pursue infinite exponential growth? Anyone with a grasp on the meaning of 'exponential' should be able to see a problem with that.

[@borealphoto]

@@mrdeanvincent It's not absurd from Nature's POV. Any species that is left unchecked will grow exponentially. Humanity will not stop until it can't.

[@bigdirtjob]

The main point is transmission lines need upgraded worldwide and they should be underground!

[@martinearly3762]

Great talk.

[@iareid8255]

There seems to be a lot of rose tinted glasses being used here. Certainly , in the U.K. that cost is increaseing not decreasing. Cost apart, what is more important is value and renewables are low value with regard to grid supplied electrcity. They are second and third rate generators and are not an equivalent to conventional generators. What ever power they supply to a grid is supported by conventional for intermittency and technical reasons. We have had decades of building these devices, indeed some are already past their life span and been shut down. No stand alone grid has come near to running on them without support.

[@cyberslim7955]

Agree on all, but not on H2. This is a totally different beast and in the making for over 50 years, with very very little progress!

[@brianholloway2358]

The biggest problem I see online are the number of people who think it is 1975.

[@nicollo3672]

Bots

[@neverendingparty2060]

Where can I invest

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

I can't say it enough: If you're a conservative, you should LOVE solar power. Most of it Is very high tech, it's the triumph of mass production, and it will feed economic growth like you've never seen.

[@GS-uy4xo]

It’s absolutely time for a modern world wide grid - no brainier, Let’s vote it in as a major issue and get it going in the US!

[@lindam.1502]

Seems like it isn't necessary though, US is big enough to manage by itself. Europe however...

[@didyouknow2588]

Thank you for showing me a good video. Wishing you a very nice new day!

[@ErnieTracey]

This pattern is also seen in the question of scale. It is the exact same mathematical formula, and it is possible to replicate this improvement in human rights, green energy implementation, health, really everything. If we look with our eyes open, if we remember the the key of "EQUITY". By so many people, companies, and governments starting to work towards a common goal (common goal = search for equity). has given us a period in time of never seen before technological advancement. We need to analyze the influences that are creating this transition towards equity. We do also need to be more holistic, in that everything effects everything else in the universe. Such is its nature. Even going green can either get us closer to equity or divide view points which creates friction that becomes arguable points of view. We must be able to walk in the other side's view. Find commonality, realize you are both reaching for the same core value goal. The thing that is stopping us is ourselves. Our inability to feel what the other side feels. Once we do there arre no limits, because we will all work together. That combination of all those experiences and talent will explode in exponential progress.

[@mclau1524]

We need more residential solar, no more HOAs telling people they cant have solar panels because they are ugly to look at

[@willeisinga2089]

I have for 11 years since 2012 50 Solar Rooftop Panels. 11.000 kWh production a year for 11 years now in Groningen Nederland. Inductioncooking Heatpump and EV. A kWh was one euro a kWh. In North Nederland I make a lot of money with my Solar Panels. No Gas No Oil No Coal. 🙂👍☀️☀️☀️

[@richardwilde1348]

Ok but here's another barrier - private sector energy generators/retailers do not want to produce enough energy, because then the price will drop. We see this in New Zealand where the gentailers like Meridian et al sit on permits to build capacity but choose not to do it, because by building more generative capacity they will oversupply the market and energy prices will drop (and actually be affordable) - so why would they do that? They prefer to maximize profit and keep energy scarce. I guess at least cheaper solar etc will make generating your own energy more affordable, for those lucky enough to have their own home and the money to buy the gear.

[@cupofkoa]

90% efficency... transmittion lines and thermal batteries are about the same. Seems as though it would probably be a balance between local and national connectivity.

[@andyfeimsternfei8408]

The US has needed to build east/west UHVDC transmission lines for decades. The benefits of increased energy efficiency alone would pay for it. With it, nothing can compete with solar and battery storage.

[@acd1235]

The cost of the solar panels is only a part of the system cost. Now, the cost for cables, inverters, labor for installation etc is dominating and I do not see how that could drastically reduce. In particular for rooftop installations every roof is different and requires individual efforts.

[@Psi-Storm]

It's still relevant, because with the high module costs 10 years ago you only build 5-7kw of panels. Now they are so cheap that it doesn't even make sense to not fill the whole roof when you paid a company to come install pv for you.

[@paulschmidts5429]

Well that’s why the trend has been going away from driving down module cost to improving module efficiency (meaning per installed module more electricity is produced), higher capacity factor through the use tracking systems (majority is still not tracking, single axis tracking is common and two axis tracking is for now practically non existent) and Integration of solarcells into prefabricated-building sections thus saveing on labor cost, as the section has to be installed anyway.

[@torbjornsjodin]

Problem is lifespan is short that has to be replaced and dig alot out the crust of the earth together with low energydensity. Recycling ???

[@bobwallace9753]

The materials used in solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries are highly recyclable.

[@FlameofDemocracy]

Use hydrogen and ammonia pipelines to move energy, not just via power lines. It is far more efficacious in energy density throughput, to do so

[@ianchadderton]

Why is now the time to build, the tech has been available for a while yet the energy companies have been rinsing us of money. They should be responsible for delivery of new clean free energy. 😊

[@Alex1710XVII]

Grids are way too big of investments for private companies to take on. Too big, too risky due to little profit margin. This is something a state or multiple states need to do. Counts for a lot of infrastructure really.

[@lkrnpk]

Thing about comments about clean energy is that goalposts always seem to be changing. I remember when electric cars of new generation (Tesla) first came out, people said ''expensive toys, maybe 1000 people will buy one''. Then Tesla said they want to build a million EVs and people said ''there is no market for million electric cars'', now people say price is still not right and range is still not right or that they do not work in all climates. Which may be/is true today, but who knows where we will be in 2030.... Same with clean energy, just 10-15 years ago the discussion was that wind and solar were laughable as resources period, some novelty expensive energy. Now we've moved to ''this will not work as batteries are expensive and we need to store the energy''. As with EVs, well let's see where we are in 2030...

[@jimgraham6722]

It's the vested interests that are the issue. It is true that renewables will decommodify energy and that is the problem. The highly profitable fossil fuel industry saw off nuclear energy, they will do the same for renewables.

[@MrBadbonesaw]

Every grocery store car parking lot in America could provide enough solar power to power the entire U.S. Just need to build car park canopy solar structures. Just give incentives for stores/landowners to use some of their otherwise wasted parking areas.

[@nowbeing1]

Fastest way is tje WEF. Reduce population tio just a few people (them)

[@cyberslim7955]

9:20 Grid is sufficient. Need battery powerplants along the grid, which is easy. Just build it into the turbine halls of old nuclear and coal/gas power plants.

[@charleswillcock3235]

Some good ideas here but I was a bit confused about hydrogen. Making hydrogen form electricity makes little sense. Talking broadly you take 2 units of electric energy which then becomes one unit of hydrogen. Thus you have half the amount of energy you started with. I will agree there are some very limited applications where this might make sense but the majority of applications of electricity is to put it in a battery and use that to power a vehicle.

[@hydrolifetech7911]

You used excess electricity at peak generation to produce clean hydrogen. It stabilises the grid during excess wind and solar electricity production and use then use the hydrogen to fill in the troughs of low production

[@Psi-Storm]

Depends on what you plan to do with the hydrogen. The pure production has an efficiency of around 80%. So if you use it directly in the chemical industry or making green steel, it's significantly better than producing it through steam reforming from fossil methane. If you have to compress it for storage, you lose 10% efficiency, and if you want to turn it back into electricity you drop another half, leaving around 35% of the energy. But the efficiency isn't even that deciding to get the last 10% of electricity production carbon neutral, you basically need 120% total production, to get from 90% renewables to 100%, while energy from pv and wind costs less than 5 cent/kwh. Basically even with the inefficiency of hydrogen it costs around 1-2 cent extra/kwh on your electricity bill.

[@JanKowalski-vj9py]

Hydrogen is to break this battery addiction.

[@juliahello6673]

So many "environmentalists" are primarily motivated by hating oil and gas and opposing anything that they want. Hate is a powerful motivator of ideology. Love doesn't really motivate. You'd think that with the possible demise of all 8 billion of us in horrible deaths would instill compassion and a desire to quickly solve problems, but people are more hate-motivated than ever.

[@haysjack6818]

Why would anyone believe the IEA's predictions? Why would anyone believe that the cost of solar and wind power will continue to go down. The fact is that the cost of raw materials and rare earth minerals needed for wind and solar will go up significantly as demand increases. And this but one of many cost issues.

[@jesusrojasparra3427]

Wait, what are these technologies built of? not commodities?

[@tomkelly8827]

As a Canadian I can say I was shocked to hear his claim that renewables are just becoming competitive now. Hydro has been the king here since electricity was first invented. Niagara falls still is generating electricity since the beginning of any power grid ever. Tesla and Westinghouse got that to go. Hydro is the way to go if you can. Wind and solar are also very good but they are a much more carbon and resource intensive electricity supply when you add in the need for batteries.

[@5353Jumper]

Except huge parts of the world do not have the option to use much Hydro. We need a mixed solution, because regions of the world have different physical realities. Hydro is awesome, where it is available.

[@yendimaulana2682]

Hydroelectric power plants are too destructive. it damages river ecosystems, changes the dynamics of sediment transport in rivers by retaining sediment downstream which can cause siltation and retreat of the coastline due to reduced sediment supply from upstream. the construction of a hydroelectric power plant requires rigorous environmental impact studies which unfortunately are not always carried out

[@haddow777]

While true, it is also handicapped by the past. This is trying to use old style logic to fix the problem. We not only need to push to replace fossil fuels with green energy, but we need to escape our primitive fascination with the magic that electricity is and stop focusing all of our solutions on just generating more electricity. Green energy is just that, energy. Electricity is just one form of energy. I honestly think that a key to us moving forward is to not only clean up our electricity, but to open ourselves up to finding ways of creating our current quality of life through technologies that aren't driven by electricity. Wouldn't offsetting our electricity dependence and demand also help us reach our goals of clean electricity without having to require so many rare and harmful elements that go into solar panels and wind farms? Solar is actually terrible for generating electricity efficiency wise when compared to heat capture. Per square meter of sunlit captured, we get a lot more energy that way. So, why not use it. So much of our energy consumption comes from heat generation. In using solar to generate out heat, we could for better and more quickly displace fossil fuel consumption our of society. The map shown talks about special areas with especially high solar levels and transporting electricity over huge distances. This exposes the two strongest weaknesses of solar electrical generation. How the inefficiency of such generation makes only the sunniest area viable for generation and how transportation is so much easier and cheaper than storage. Rare and environmentally harmful, as well as extremely expensive materials are required for electrical storage. Heat storage is the opposite. Carbon in the form of graphite and sand are in abundance around the world, and they are great heat storage mediums. I'm fact, they are amongst the most abundant materials on Earth. As solar heat capture is so much more efficient than electrical generation, it doesn't require being captured in some fad off land. It can be captured close to its destination. The heat can be captured in the sunny season, stored until the less sunny times, infused when it is needed. Also, with the assistance of electrically efficient heat pumps, stored solar heat can be ramped up in temperature for industrial application, to offset the truly enormous energy demand of industry for heat. More, with a little ingenuity, we can find all sorts of ways of applying such energy. Think about food production in colder climates or dry climates. Store solar heat that can then be used for greenhouses. Add to that all the organic waste from cities. Massive amounts of methane are produced by rotting organic waste. What if warm air from solar heaters flowed through chambers of organic waste on their its way to greenhouses its heating? Warm air is more absorbent, and would absorb the water from the waste, drying it out. This would make the air not only warm, but humid. So, without using fossil fuels or even electricity, one could have greenhouses that are warm and humid enough to grow plants that normally can only grow in more equatorial areas with lush environments. Beyond that, drying out the organic waste would cut short the methane production of the rotting process. Beyond that, it would also produce nutrient rich inorganic material that could be used in the soils of the plants to help the greenhouse even more to grow healthy strong plants. All while while using green not electrically demanding energy. No doubt there are a million other ways non electrical green energy can be utilized by technology to drive our and others quality of life up while at the same time reducing our dependence and demand on the electrical grid. It's good to push for more electrical generation, but we absolutely need to stop restricting ourselves by making it the sole focus of our search for better solutions.

[@JanKowalski-vj9py]

Return to Middle Age is impossible.

[@drewgoodman7932]

Add this to the growing list of studies saying that renewables is better, cheaper, and inevitable. Rethinkx 100% SWB, Tesla master plan 3, and now this.

[@tiga2001]

hey, I know it's not the point of this video, but I wanted to point out a mistake in 9:58 . Taipei is not part of the People's Republic of China.

[@ErnieTracey]

Please beware of the power of not tryin g to understand each other as the greatest barrier we are facing.

[@alexandermelbaus2351]

I don't get how solar or wind are cheaper; 20 years of ongoing construction projects all across the state of Victoria and they don't match anywhere near the output of the old coal power plants in rated output; The intermittent operation of a good wind turbine site produces 30% of it's rated capacity over 12 months. The wind turbines are difficult to maintain and their operational life is not very long.Before the infrastructure is completed to match the power output, the earliest wind turbines would need replacing. Maintaining and operating thousands of wind generators; 50-100 metres high, sprawled across hundreds of acres all across the country, covering thousands of acres of land compared to maintaining 2 or 3 sites with 8 powerful generators each that are all contained in a building with easy access, with tools and support onsite; This is 100 times more work. The cabling is easy to bring across the state and connect into the fixed sites, these different sized and intermittent sites are going to need wiring all over the place. Another huge construction operation and the maintenance on this new grid is going to be far more complicated. Then we add electrical storage, more costs, more complications. The construction and maintenance is going to be ongoing to keep the sites operating, replacing failed sites and servicing a far more complicated grid. It would be more work then operating machinery and putting coal on a conveyor belt. The coal is under our feet; It's ours; The only cost should be digging it out the ground. Wind and solar are good for smaller sites and for boosting the grid, they are not at all practical for large scale, high power outputs to support our nation and it's industry.

[@gjward64]

The problem facing such ideals are the enormous environmental impact of solar panels, windmills and transmission lines. Add in the full cost and 'renewable ' energy is not so cost effective. All these machines cause power prices to rise. We have nuclear and gas and some renewable energy, but let's not ignore the damage of large scale renewable projects. At the end of the day they'll make minimal impact on climate, but at a very high environmental and economic cost

[@FlameofDemocracy]

The most efficacious paths to a clean energy future would rely on metal powders as renewable fuels for heat, the hydrogen economy, along with the regenerative grid theory. Use the surplus energy in the grid, an incredible amount in the US, to make hydrogen, and evolve to the next stage.

[@IamOluwaseun009]

Clean energy technologies are technology and they drop in cost like other technologies; as they are scaled they come down in price. Meanwhile, fossil fuels are commodities, whose prices fluctuate.

[@ralfgustav982]

great presentation. Let's do this.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

2:10 The labels on this graph say this is the cost PER KWH. Now, solar cell cost is one thing. But then there's Balance Of System that must be factored in, to get the cost per kWh. If that's really what that graph is showing, then that is just breathtaking. In fact, as big a booster of this stuff as I am. I have to stop and wonder if this is accurate. But maybe it is. Solar + wind is now bigger than nuclear, and by a comfortable margin. Like everyone else, I'm still struggling to adjust my mind to it.

[@PowerUnicorn]

These are costs at the panel. Not only balance of system costs need to be included but also the LOSS in energy attributed to the conversion from DC to AC. Remember that solar and wind are intermittent and we have no dispatch control (we can't call for it when we need it) -- so until we have HUGE storage systems we will need dispatchable technologies. So ... what does this mean? The current impact of using renewables is that their backup becomes MORE expensive on a per kWh basis -- increasing the final bill to the consumer. This is what happens when zealots grab a number and claim victory. Renewable power is part of our future --- and we should allow room for other low emission technologies (nuclear and geothermal are examples) -- zealotry hampers progress.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

@@PowerUnicorn No, I have not forgotten that wind and solar are intermittent. (How could I, when we have someone reminding us of that at every turn?) I don't think the needed storage will be big as you suggest, and that is for several reasons. Some technologies have such compelling advantages that their trajectory can hardly fail to become dominant. That's not zealotry, just reality.

[@Psi-Storm]

@@PowerUnicorn On the one hand you remark that renewables are intermittent, but then you propose to add power generation systems that are only financially viable if they can run 24/7. What are we supposed to do with the excess power produced from nuclear reactors when the sun is shining? PV and wind need an on demand production type as a supplement, not baseload production that stops them from contributing.

[@PowerUnicorn]

@@Psi-Storm Sorry for the confusion. My response was focused on the short term impact of rising prices for the consumer while the energy transition is occurring. When calculating the LCOE of a technology one of the inputs is production (kWh/yr) -- if that number is reduced then the corresponding LCOE is higher. I'm a big fan of nuclear and geothermal --- technologies that can be baseload when required and set to run as load following as well.

[@paulschmidts5429]

@@PowerUnicorn The stated LCOE will most likely be the cost at the powerplant. For Reference the LCOE calculated by the International Renewable Energy Agency IRENA for projects commissioned in 2021 is on average: 0,048 $/KWh for utility scale photovoltaic 0,033 $/KWh for Onshore Wind According to the study, Wind and Solar generation added in 2021 are projected to save 55 Billion Dollars in 2022 electricity generation costs. The Fuel saved by the operation of additional wind and solar, by far offsets the slightly decreased efficiency of fossil generators running in load following, as the same study shows that fossil fuel imports worth 53 Billion Dollars were avoided between January and May 2022 by renewable generators in Europe. The myth that wind and solar forcing fossile generators into less efficient load following operation, would actually increase the amount of Carbondioxide emitted, was one the industry created to avoid being less able to sell electricity from its already existing powerplants.

[@hanshenker5500]

This guy is nuts!

[@gothmajesty1976]

_The reason I wanted to become an engineer is to contribute into making these environmental solutions happen. It won't only help the environment, but it will also make a sustainable future for the next generations. At first I thought engineers have a high salary so that's great, but as the years go by, the demand for mechanical engrs decreases due to many students pursuing that career. But that didn't stop me because the reason why I wanted to be an engineer is to help make the Earth a better place, and I would do it in any way I can._

[@tonywilson4713]

I'm also an engineer (aerospace) who works in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. Everyone needs to be mindful of people who do these talks because even though they make many great 100% accurate comments they also either ignore inconveniencies, over simplify things or outright mislead. I've had some huge eye openers in the 30+ years since graduation. I'm Australian but did my degree in America and then came back here and spent over a decade in manufacturing. In 2002 I met Apollo 17 Astronaut Harrison Schmitt and he talked about mining the moon for Helium-3. So I went off to Australia's remote mining industry to learn about mining. The timing was sort of fortunate because we were building a bunch of new mines to supply China. Other than learning about mining the real benefit I got form that experience was a massive lesson in basic infrastructure including energy systems and water management. This guy is right on about 90% of what he's saying but he glosses over or ignores or just gets plain wrong a couple of things. That slide at 3:30 is BULLSHlT you cant have anything so many times less than something else unless you are comparing it to a 3rd item. You can only do a fraction or percentage. I truly hate anyone who does that because its so misleading. The other thing is he glosses over the minerals needed to make things like solar panel. YES I hate the clowns who usually scream about how much emissions from extracting these minerals are made, but they do have a point. These are things the Greenies are always ignoring. I have worked on both a copper mine and an an Alumina refinery and those are damn nasty energy intensive processes. Rare earths minerals are even WORSE and we need huge amounts of them for the high efficiency electric motors needed. He never even mentioned the issues with Lithium production and energy storage. There's 1.5 Billion registered cars and nearly 1/2 a billion registered trucks in the world. That's a massive task requiring a staggering amount of lithium to either replace them or replace their drive systems AS WELL AS GENERATING the electricity to power them. AND THAT does not even begin to address the energy needs of developing societies which he never even mentions. So despite the fact Ramez has a got a lot of important facts right he's also leaving out a lot that is just as important points. I'm not sure what sort of engineer you are but this is really import in any project you ever do. The problems that bite are rarely the things you are working on but the things you dismissed as less important.

[@MatthewKiehl]

This was a reason I studied engineering, but I grew discouraged when I realized how much of this problem is actually social. People want to "green wash" this consumption economy when reducing consumption may be one of the only solutions. It's like the housing crisis - over consumption of housing and builders drives up costs and forces out the poorest.

[@HaroldBrice]

Goth Majesty: Mayeth I suggest you get ahold of a psychologist/counselor from outside the marijuana social set and realign your reality.

[@jojomue12]

Okay, but it is not all about the costs. It is about the resources our planet has left. For example copper is needed for wind wheels, but copper is available only for the next 30 years on the earth. Same with Indium for solar cells.

[@doctormosfet]

Cost per watt should be broken down into residential vs. industrial installations. Residential solar is still very expensive and installers will gladly rip you off just to slap something on your roof.

[@jimlofts5433]

OK heaps of solar cheap ?? why are power bills higher

[@chapter4travels]

Because the cost of solar is just added to some other reliable electricity source, usually natural gas.

[@Alex1710XVII]

Because we are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels

[@TedApelt]

There are people saying that the only way we can decarbonize is with nuclear, because of the horrible state of our power grid.

[@ErnieTracey]

We need to grow a holistic grid. First focus on nano grids (home based), then network into micro grids (community based) and connecting nano grids and micro grids creates a state grid, keep growing and you have built a national grid, and if we can put petty details in our respective view points, which are based on our experiences, DNA and other influencing factors, we can grow into a world grid to share as equally as possible. Good bye stress due to energy insecurity. This model works for food insecurity, housing insecurity, all of our insecurities, and therefore all of the stress causing aspects that create our respective fears and negative outlooks. We could actually meet the 1947 Baisc Human Rights accord published by UNDP/UNESCO. Talk about growth.

[@juanrendon5720]

And yet the efficiency of the solar panel has barely changed

[@EagerSnake]

But, but, what about the cost of destroying mountains to produce panels and batteries? I mean, I love the idea of solar and electric car to a certain point, but the amount of destruction just to produce a battery large enough for a car is just so catastrophically awful that I can't even say it.

[@ri3sch]

Had me going until he said that the societies should copy Texas power grid setup. As anyone knows from recent years, the privatization and private control of the power grid is not good

[@robertzantay5923]

You don’t spend any time talking about geothermal which can be used anywhere and will provide year-round access to 55° temperatures just by digging a hole and great amount of heat if you go Deep

[@bluezcluez315]

Local energy is better - more resilient. Plenty of roof space in the US - 8B m^2 for 1 TW. Add batteries to make it firm, dispatchable.

[@fisalfadjri5653]

whats the negative things will come if almost all people on earth using solar panel?

[@pinoyyoutubekomiks7813]

My new innovation called perpetual hydro gravity is the solution of our energy crisis. But if this innovation nobody believes me it will be buried if I have no life in this world. Hydro gravity is the answer. I know never heard of this because this kind of idea is my new design. No one's believes me. How can I introduce I have no capacity to show this that this is what we need. Hope someone give me a chance to prove that this is what we need. Again this a perpetual source of energy.

[@msxcytb]

Amazing. Germany dropped perhaps a Trillion on solar and wind and in about 20years they pay with economy in serious trouble and electricity about as expensive as possible. Even more mysterious is that Germany makes electricity with about 400gCO2 for every kWh, while for some more M Y S T E R I O U S reason France makes reliable power with about 50gCO2 for every kWh some 40years already(and if electricity is clean, cheap and plentiful it is only logical to make heating and cooling with electricity and not natural gas).

[@DavidPlayfair]

If deep-bored geothermal comes to fruition, E.G. GA Drilling and Quaise etc, wouldn't solar, wind and the need for continent-wide grid infrastructure become less important? Maybe even irrelevant?

[@davestagner]

Only if a: deep bore geothermal is actually less expensive than renewables (simply existing is not enough), and b: it first has to actually exist. At the moment, deep bore geothermal is theoretical the way various gen4 nuclear designs are - sure, it looks nice on paper, but no one has actually built it in the real world yet.

[@jhunt5578]

I don't know why some people in the comments have a hard on for nuclear. Its a good technology that can account for a smaller percentage of energy. But solar, wind and batteries are the bulk of the solution when you consider price and installation speed.

[@RisenAngel945]

Nuclear power supplemented with renewable energy sources is the way. Because nuclear power plants provide stable constant energy and are mostly environmental friendly. Renewable sources provide the grid while they can (sun,wind), and battery storage that supplements a grid is just too expensive. We lack the raw materials that we need for batteries, to expand and to sophisticate the electrical grid (look up the main site for cobalt in the republic of congo and how people work there). He has good points on planning and allocation of relevant renewables. On the other hand look what happened on the sun between 13-14 of march, the most massive solar flare since they started to record that stuff. If just a piece of that hits us ALL of EVERYTHING related to electricity becomes unusuable, it just too much a power shift as well and politics for it to go smoothly. Don't get me wrong, i love that we are even talking about these ideas and changes and we should work harder towards renewables.

[@GIMMEMAHCHEZBURGER]

lol u don’t understand the grid bro 😂😂😂 nuclears objectively better

[@beautifulgirl219]

@@GIMMEMAHCHEZBURGER Thank you for being informed!

[@beautifulgirl219]

NUCLEAR is the cleanest, safest, most energy dense, and most reliable form of energy generation. It is the ONLY form of energy that we could build out and power the planet in the time frame climate change requires. A coke can worth of uranium will power AN ENTIRE LIFETIME worth of energy use. It is 3 Million times as energy dense as fossil fuels. It is 25 TIMES more abundant than oil and coal combined. At the current rate of Earth's energy usage mankind has a 25 Billion year supply of uranium, add in Thorium and it DOUBLES at least. In the 60s and 70s the U.S. built 100 reactors and was on schedule to meat 100% of American power needs by 1990. 4500 Vogtle reactors are quite doable and would meet the planet's energy needs TODAY. NO OTHER form of energy can make that statement. If mankind built them in that volume they would be CHEAP relative to other forms of power generation.

[@farhanaf832]

BOINC Software to Cut 20 Years in Solar Cell Development Citizens can change the world

[@Paul.Gallant]

This analysis is not taking into consideration mining mineral sourcing of copper and silver which are in severe decline and are required to manufacture solar panels. We are living in a finite world with finite resources.

[@ValenHawk]

How about we take care of the threat plastics a and pollution in general are doing to our eco system.

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

He makes many good points. I think the biggest issue is there isn’t a clear winner so many utilities are apprehensive to make the jump and lock themselves into a technology that is immediately superseded by another technology.

[@philipsalmon2192]

The oil companies will NEVER get out of the way!

[@bobwallace9753]

The oil companies will die. Or the name might continue attached to a company that has a business other than oil. EVs will soon, very soon, be cheaper to purchase than same-feature ICEVs. Add in operating cost savings and people will quit using oil for transportation. Look at coal. That is a dying industry which has less and less political power every year. Oil will follow the same route.

[@jesseyoung9654]

​@@bobwallace9753 More coal was sold in 2022 than in any year in history. Seems very much alive as an industry...

[@bobwallace9753]

@@jesseyoung9654 This was a fluke caused by Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Russian natural gas was abruptly taken out of the market and the price of gas soared which caused a high coal use. With much more renewable being installed, efficiency measures taken we should see coal consumption dropping back to its downward slope this coming winter.

[@isorry123_]

In Connecticut, I’ve heard people say they don’t want to mar their ocean views with big wind turbines Having to explain to them that the turbines are behind the horizon - Beyond line of sight…. lol

[@salahidin]

Renewables might be a technology, but they heavily rely on rare commodities such as neodymium and copper... Too many wind turbines can inflict a fatal blow to birds.

[@Rosemountainfarm]

"Level playing" field is a dream, big oil will not let it happen unless they own the solar too. Small community power is the best way to go. If we have no grid, then it's not a vulnerability.

[@bobwallace9753]

Big Oil can, at best, only slow things down a bit. Big Oil is stumbling toward the grave as EV prices rapidly fall. We need grids. We can argue about how large they should be, but the best solution is a mix of wind and solar and it's better if the catchment area is somewhat large.