Ratkaisuja vauhdittamaan siirtymää kestävään, hiilineutraaliin maailmaan. Solutions to accelerate the transition to a sustainable, carbon-neutral world.
So what this proves more than any other study is that while we have the high benefit of oil we need to be building molten salt breeder thorium reactors to the tune of ten per week for small modular reactors in a factory ship building factory with 300 megawatt per unit structured to remove xenon gas and remove tellurium as soon possible. If we do not do this now we will have missed the boat and the population will soon plunge to 1/2 current human beings on the planet world wide. This reactor to be cost effective should have a Brayton cycle super critical co2 turbine small enough to be affordable. Now people.
The future is in God's Hands. CO2 issues are false. Produce carbon data so far in the atmosphere. The Sun there to stop all this madness because solar flares are coming to destroy all futile activity. Stop using the evil word 'sustainable'. We know it now: depopulation. Where minerals are, there are people. Are you going to displace people? Forget about green transmission, it's evil and too ambitious and God hates this.
Excellent introduction, I've been having a hard time motivating people to watch a 1-2 hour presentation or discussion with Dr. Michaux, but this should be a good teaser to get more people to pay attention.
Jam-packed full with data, so difficult for this layman to follow. Hopefully new renewable energy streams & storage will be innovated to meet the electrification requirements to replace ever more fossil fuel use going forward. Its something like having only one option to sail a half-finished battleship to war, carrying out the rest of the construction during the voyage, & hoping it will be completed & ready by the time it reaches the battle zone some time later. In this sort of scenario we won't know how successful we have been until we reach the battle zone.
What about geothermal, tidal, nuclear and other forms of renewable... your story is missing many chapters in your book. Not that the switch to renewables is simple but it is neccesary and will in time finish the job.
Lots of wrongheaded assumptions for wind turbines and battery chemistries by the IEA. It assumes 70% GB-DFIG, 10% BG-PMSG, 15% DD-PMSG and 5%DD-EESG for onshore in 2040, but there will probably be nobody producing onshore DD in 2040 now that Goldwind and Siemens-Gamesa have abandoned that tech for onshore and Enercon's DD-EESG is rapidly losing market share. I predict 80% GB-DFIG and 20% GB-PMSG is likely for onshore in 2040. The EIA predicts 15% GB-PMSG and 85% DD-PMSG for offshore in 2040, which is totally wrong, since Vestas, Mingyang, Envision and Goldwind are all going with GB-PMSG for offshore, because it is cheaper and requires less metal. I predict that offshore will be 75% GB-PMSG, 25% DD-PMSG in 2040. Another bad assumption is the capacity of turbines in 2040 and the capacity factor. With the way that Chinese turbines are increasing in size, I expect that the average turbine will be 10MW for onshore and 30MW for offshore in 2040, which means less metal and higher capacity factors than Michaux is assuming. The wind industry will probably need half the copper and rare earth metals that Michaux predicts in 2040. As for battery chemistries, the IEA predicts that light duty vehicles (LDVs) will be 3.5% NCA+, NMC 622 5.2%, NMC 811 52.2%, LFP 10.1% and ASSB 29.0% in 2040. The IEA seems to know nothing about where the market is headed. NMC 622 will be gone by 2040, and we will probably have NMC 911 and NM 91 by 2040. However, the biggest change will be the rise of LMFP and sodium ion. I expect the LDV market to be 2% NMCA, 8% NMC, 50% LMFP and 40% sodium ion in 2040. I'm not listing solid state as a separate chemistry since it will use NMCA, NMC and LMFP. As for grid batteries, I expect that they will be 80% sodium ion and 20% LMFP in 2040. With those assumptions, we will need a lot less copper, cobalt, nickel and lithium and rare earths than Michaux assumes.
I would have liked a comparison of the per (100?, 1000?) mile emissions of an ICE vehicle compared with the emissions of a PHEV, and BEV. It should include, not only , manufacture and raw material costs, etc., but, also, the emissions from the power plant to charge the vehicle to go the same distance. I suspect that the power plant would be more efficient per mile traveled. Therefore, knowing how much faster we can cut emissions with PHEVs could tell us if PHEVs would allow faster emissions cuts than BEVs. PHEVs avoid the issues of charging away from home/office/destination, long charging times, charger compatibility, range anxiety, customer acceptance, etc. (The manual for my PHEV says to drive in hybrid mode on the highway. It's more efficient than electric traction at high speed. It took me a while, but I figured out that slow charging overnight, at a discount, while I slept, was the best options for a PHEV.) The impact on automobile manufacture workers, grid overload, and the costs of government subsidies should be taken into account. Catastrophic unemployment in the automobile sector might be a cure as bad as the disease. Some additional concerns: Since subsidized BEVs are getting as inexpensive as ICE vehicles, should those subsidies be phased out? By the way, why are we still subsidizing the fossil fuel industry?
If we need stuff in space, we should get it directly. Building nukes is a distraction that doesn't get space materials. It benefits investors at the price of irreversible radiation poisoning. The sponsors of nuclear enerrgy are on a brainwashing jag. They must be stopped.
The "Green Energy" movements around the world just do not understand basic physics. The energy requirements of all societies of this world is based on thermodynamics. That is it. And the only way to produce the energy density requirements need to supply the required energy to these societies is through the use of petroleum products at the moment. Actually the best energy source of Earth that can be constructed is through the use of nuclear fission. The "Green Energy" movement has blocked the propagation of nuclear fission energy production in the world which has resulted in further increase of petroleum burning particulate pollution that is the real cause of death in this world. Until the "Green Energy" movement recognises nuclear fission as the best "Green Energy" ever created then this health issue will continue. Wind and solar do not have the energy density needed for a thermodynamic process, from these sources, to be viable for the energy needs of the world societies and they never will. Wind and solar thermodynamic energy production is actually more environmentally destructive than the petroleum energy production at any scale. Wake up people and let us go nuclear!!!!!!
I instinctively agree with your general analysis and it is impossible to get away from the limitations of growth with finite resources. The only question is the scale of the problem which will influence how much time we have to transition and what the stable transitioned state will look like. There are a couple of elements of your analysis I am not clear on: 1. Do your calculations take account of the innate inefficiency of converting fossil fuels in to energy? In other words, is the power equivalence you have arrived at determined from usage levels and the current efficiency levels of alternative technologies or from the simple conversion of the amount of oil used in 2018 and the resources needed to replace that amount of oil? I hesitate to raise this somewhat 101 issue but this isn't addressed in the original video. 2. The future increase in efficiencies in current alternative technologies is an element which of course is difficult to calculate but would be useful to include as an unknown variable to obtain a range of timescales for plotting a future course of action. Ultimately, local micro-grids backed up by current national infrastructure have so many positives as to be a no-brainer. Local communities will be much more effective in mediating use when they have an investment in the production and distribution.
The PTB also seem to not recognize that the poor of the world-3 continents & then some cannot obtain EVs. Transportation is essential so I would not place that burden on them. I see some positive gains in transportation coming in mass transit: maglev trains (you lose all the diesel), gyroscopic vehicles, potentiall hydrogen in jet planes.
I can see coal fading out but I would preserve natural gas for heating & electricity. Electricity is very expensive. The heating sector is the least fossil fuel using sector because it is limited in season & distribution.
Don't let the Pied Piper lead you off a cliff. Ask hard questions like why haven't any of your climate doomsday predictions come true? What is your plan for replacing fossil fuels with energy sources of greater or equal density?
The world has basically unlimited fissile fuel, combine that with high-temperature nuclear technology and we are presented with a very bright future not contained by EVs', massive new transmission corridors, just use what we have.
Neither climate change nor CO2 has any relevance to the need for a sustainable energy future - each is a false narrative - all that matters is we are foolishly counting finite resources as infinite. Before we can do anything about anything we need to get rid of money-corrupted ideological science with its jiggered and falsified data sets and bring back real science. Unfortunately, special interests can push Lies through the media and rake in billions. Lies are wildly profitable, whereas the truth is inconvenient and not profitable at all.
I assume other people will need to make sacrifices whilst we enjoy the abundance of riches in medicine, transport, communication and accomodation? I may also have missed the start of the video - why is there such blind faith in rushing to get rid of fossil fuels? And I would like to see a proper cost/beneift analysis of destroying our lifestyles, our life expectency and our environment just to maybe posssibly reduce the world's temperatures in 200 or 400 years time?
New plan is simple. Stop using electricity, cars, airplanes, super tankers, cities, restaurants, income taxes, coal, oil, natural gas. Will you be the first to volunteer to live like a buddhist monk, living locally, with next to nothing? Will billionaires and oligarchs volunteer to have less, not more? Will city people give up college and over paid fake jobs for gardening and splitting wood? Please lead the way.
The ONLY way this could work is if ALL countries on the planet cooperated together to organize such a transition, but this is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE, given the nature of WASPs, Nazis, and Organized Crime elements in control of ALL the Western countries who ONLY know cutthroat competition.
Theoretically, we could do this in a controlled manner, but in reality, it will descend into chaos and turmoil. 1950 we where 2.5 bn on this planet, by then a record number. With cheap energy like oil, which has a high energy density, we did add 5.5 billion in merely 70 years. Was that a smart move? This was a period when we knew more about how this world works than ever before. Suddenly, we have become so much more clever and smart that we can solve the problem the last 70 years created.
Co2 does not cause climate change. The laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed. Steven Koonen explains the dichotomy between the science and political rhetoric of the ipcc
There's another elephant in the room. He shows what levels renewables have to replace, and it is post-2005. And yet, Simon showed that our industry did at least a 6 fold increase of every aspect of society, infrastructure (materials), energy, electricity, and millions of tons of toxic chemicals to transform to using fracking and tar sands. And he bases his calculations on this paradox? Take that extra load out of the system. And by the way, plastics are just an industry orgasmic reaction of their worry that we will adopt EV (LOL).
Sustainable mining = oxymoron. "Leaving some for future generations" when have humans (other than a few communities like native American Indians) ever done that? We may leave enough for the next two generations, but what about humans and the rest of the living world after that?. We can either stop the craziness now, with some casualties obviously, or keep going until we collapse the whole ecosystem and spoil it for future humans, other animals, plants and fungi. We've got to prepare our societies for a much simpler way of life. If we just keep going on with growthism and business as usual and wait till we fall off the cliff then we are all screwed. It's crazy how these bigwigs can't face up to this. There needs to be mass education on the situation we are in, government's and the masses, then everyone will get behind doing the work to transition to a an ecologically principled rural village farming lifestyle. I can't see anything else working
It is puzzling why the energy quality is changing, but not the energy quantity? Instead of changing the climate, we’re supposed to be changing the economy. Just switching out the energy doesn’t change the demand, only the supply. Most people on earth don’t even benefit from the current economy, and it’s become lethal! So why exactly are we trying to preserve it? When exactly did this become a desperate attempt to save capitalism?
Energy transition.....is codespeak for human population destruction. It is the only way to successfully acheive the balance to the calculations of their civilization-control theories....how to kill people systemically in large numbers over a timescale that balances their endpoint calculations...an "intelligenr" Hitler.
Could a hybrid system of solar wind and battery storage with gas and coal for winter power base load getting you 75% of the way there is better than all fossil fuels
Some W/S/S makes sense. Too much raises costs and lowers reliability. The reasons are rooted in the physics of what they are, dilute and intermittent. They are far too resource intensive and chaotic to be capable of doing the heavy lifting. We need more involvement with engineers and energy infrastructure experts when implementing policies, not those that have no training or experience in any relevant field. Most of us have no idea what this vital resource requires and we should before advocating for this or that way of managing it. "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." Richard Feynman
The thing to remember is what volume of new materials we will need for "green" generation, transportation and heating, vs our former fuels based solutions. That we will need substantially LESS materials than we do already supply for fossil fuel based systems. So new supply chains yes, but substantially smaller supply chains than the ones we are using now. Sure solar panels, windmills, batteries, heat pumps, improved power grids and EV cars require materials - but not nearly as much as gas/coal generators, furnaces, fuels refineries, pipelines, trucks and trains to transport fuels, fuel storage, and ICE cars with large aluminum engine blocks and transmissions, PLUS all of the actual fuel itself. So, we will need new supply chains. We have the opportunity to build BETTER supply chains if we can maintain social and regulatory pressure to ensure environmental and social responsibility. Yep, there is potential environmental damage and social horrors, but only as bad and maybe better than the current disasters caused by the extraction of fuels and the metals of the fuel industry. This reduction in materials needed will in itself reduce emissions and energy consumption before we add in the reduction in emissions and efficiency of the solution itself being better. The negative of this is that the reduction of required supply chain long term (after overlap between solutions has passed) will bring a reduction in trade economy and employment. So we need to stay vigilant so the new supply chains are ethical. And we also need to handle the economic complications of the new supply chains being so much smaller than the old supply chain was.
It's clear for a lot of reasons, including materials throughput, that dilute intermittents are unsuitable to do the heavy lifting of meeting our energy needs. All energy production methods have tradeoffs, and meeting the needs of 8 going on 10 B of us will likely take all of them. Dilute intermittents are far too resource intensive and chaotic to be capable of doing the heavy lifting. There are real-life problems to scaling W&S that make it physically impossible with the technology that exists or is realistically foreseeable to supply more than a minor contribution to our energy needs. For one thing, there must be sufficient dispatchable power in order to add intermittent power effectively. Some W&S makes sense if the solid reliable infrastructure exists, and we don't overtax it coping with intermittents chaotic nature. when used moderately, some W&S can lower costs and emissions without compromising grid functionality. Too much raises costs and weakens infrastructure, cannibalizing any gains made. This is probably why we see so little progress in emmissions reduction by adding them compared to adding dense, reliable, clean sources like hydro and nuclear power. If we're serious about reducing environmental impact while providing energy security by far the most effective thing we can do is build a buttload of nuclear power. NP requires a fraction of the resources of the alternatives and provides clean, safe, reliable energy for many decades.
@@dodiewallace41 So? I mean yes of course a mixed approach is best. And even better, reducing consumption. Of course we should do all these things. Except the one point that wind and solar are resource intensive, because they are the least resource intensive energy generation we have...which is why they are an important part of the mix. It takes a lot more resources per KWH to build a nuclear or hydro facility that it does to build an equal solar/wind farm. Even if you add in battery farms to reduce the intermittency of the generation. On top of that solar and wind have the benefit of being added at the endpoint reducing grid demand, reducing land use, improving redundancy and taking "power" away from the energy oligopolies. All in wind and solar have an important role on providing cost effective generation - which could allow more nuclear and hydro projects balancing the problem that they are the most expensive forms of electricity generation. Some regions don't have water for hydro or nuclear power. Some regions don't have sun. Some regions don't have wind. Some regions don't have natural gas. Some regions don't have mass capital for large projects. Some regions have political instability and terrible safety standards. So a globally mixed solution is going to be the only solution. Solar and wind as the lowest cost and lowest emissions and lowest resource requirement solutions will be an important part of the puzzle.
@5353Jumper We're going to need a lot more energy. There are currently billions of people that do not have access to reliable, affordable energy and the comfort and security we enjoy because we do have access. They are coming on line, as they should. Then, in the first world, we are looking to reduce our dependence on hydrocarbons for energy, and currently, only about 20% of our own energy is electricity. If we're thinking of reducing hydrocarbon fuel use for transportation and heating, that means a lot more electricity, yes? What can be done with dilute intermittents is very limited and comes with a high financial and environmental cost when we insist on overdependance on them. Unfortunately, many, including governments, have made the goal RE instead of energy security, affordability, and environmental protection. This is counterproductive. By far, the most effective thing we can do to meet our energy needs while minimizing environmental impact is to build a buttload of nuclear power. NP requires a fraction of the resources of the alternatives and provides clean, safe, and reliable power for many decades. We should be using it as much as possible.
@@dodiewallace41 nuclear is great, sure let's have more of it. But it is also the most expensive and nearly the most resource intensive way of generating electricity. On this point you are wrong. Total emissions it is better than gas/coal but it is also worse than many other forms of generation. And that is why it will not be adopted as the majority solution, just part of the mix. For nuclear to be affordable as a piece of the energy mix we will need cheap solutions supplementing it like wind and solar.
@5353Jumper If you were to look into it, you'd find that it is not correct. Density and lifespan are both important factors in environmental impact. The more density, the lower the resource requirements and the longer the lifespan, the lower the resource requirements as well. These are two of the reasons why physically, Dilute intermittents are extremely resource intensive compared to the alternatives, and overdependance on them raises costs financially and environmentally. Most of us have no idea what it takes to have reliable energy infrastructure. For an explanation that we don’t have to be engineers to understand this is a great resource. Shorting the Grid: The Hidden Fragility of Our Electric Grid by Meredith Angwin. I found that I had a lot of misconceptions about wind as solar as well. I had been thinking that what we needed was renewable energy when what is actually needed is clean, reliable energy. 🤦 I had assumed that a unit of power production from them meant a unit less from FF, that they were cleaner than the alternatives, that power could be stored for use when needed like water or grain, and that if we just built enough of them we could meet our energy needs without FF. All of this was absolutely wrong. Electricity is a service, not a commodity. Energy infrastructures job is to deliver power when and where needed. Intermittent and dispatchable power are not the same thing, like Uber and intermittent Uber are not the same thing. Wind and solar require far more resources per unit of power production right off the bat than the alternatives do, and they don't stand on their own, typically backed up with coal or NG. And as intermittent power sources bring increased instability to energy infrastructures job of delivering power when and where needed, we end up using far more backup than we need with stable, reliable sources. The higher the percentage of Intermittents, the greater the instability so the higher percentage of backup needed. At 20-30% capacity factor, every MW-hr of solar & wind drive 3-5x as much dispatchable build out for backup. But, since solar/wind are chaotic, they drive efficiency down, driving dispachable per MWe-hr up by 2-3x. This is probably why we've seen so little progress in emmissions reduction by adding them to our power grids compared to adding dense, reliable sources like NP and hydro power. overdependance on intermittents harms the lifespan of dispatchable power in the system. It's like the difference between running your car at a steady 70 mph or constantly stomping on the gas and then slamming on the brakes. It causes more wear and tear. I wish this wasn't so damn political and that we involved input from engineers & grid operation experts more than we do. This isn't a sporting event or a popularity contest although we act like it is. Most of us have no idea what it actually takes to run energy infrastructure and we should before advocating for this or that way of managing this essential service.
The world today is in front of many challenges, energy scarcity to run the economy developed during centuries. Even the world use 173300 TWhr energy on a year, of which 84% are fossil fuels, the transition to renewable energies is a must action. The peak oil today is the past, peak gas natural may have some more time, and using more coal is not desirable. All these based on existing technologies. Fast transition as planed is shooting ourselves, big problem for energy and minerals needed. The world really is finite but every estimate is based on what is known and neglect the know-haw technologies which can save the world. We often hear peak oil related this with supply and scholars say peak oil demand which is unprofessional. The peak oil supply is professional but not scientific, the experts do these estimates based on technologies they know which live underground more than 12 trillion barrel crude oil and bitumen. The Know-haw new technologies can produce at least 50% of 12 trillion barrel oil underground which can keep running the economy for 150-200 years. On addition to this, the wind energy the world use today with know-haw new technology can generate double the energy produced today for the same consumption of metals. And even better results can be achieved using a new undisclosed renewable technology which generate electricity based on gravity which never is finite. Using "Stationary Gravity Energy Engine" can save CAPEX and opex and generate energy on demand, will lead the world on the right path of energy transition. Public information finish here, but more information can be discussed with government interested on energy transition and institutional experts involved on energy transition.
Renewable or not is utterly irrelevant. Our energy goals should be security, affordability, and environmental protection without regard to being called RE or not. RE is nothing but a misleading marketing term like all natural or chemical free. It's not being called RE that matters. Sometimes, methods we label RE are the best option. Often, they are not. Unfortunately, many, including governments, have made the goal RE instead of energy security, affordability, and environmental protection, and this is counterproductive. It's clear for a lot of reasons that dilute intermittents are unsuitable to do the heavy lifting if these are our goals.
Reducing dependence on hydrocarbons means having equally effective substitutes available, and that's not easy for a lot of reasons. As it is our most effective technology capable of making a meaningful dent in hydrocarbon dependence is nuclear power.
Thinking that renewable means anything at all is a mistake. The goals should be energy security, affordability, and environmental protection without regard to being called RE or not. It's clear for a lot of reasons, including materials throughput, that dilute intermittents are unsuitable to do the heavy lifting of meeting our energy needs. We need to stop thinking that because we call them RE that they are better for humanity and the environment.
