I'm impressed by the heat pump adoption in the UK. A bit of a learning curve, but with managed expectations and subsidies, the transition to heat pumps in some developing regions may be like the leap from few/no phones to ubiquitous cell phones with no landlines in between. Hopeful.
@@Timlagor- The subsidies seem to be enough to make some people make the switch. There's a sweet spot that makes people change. It's a balancing thing.
🛑Humans led to Venus global warming🤏 🛑Humans led to Mars thin atmosphere🤏 🛑Humans let to Neptune climate change🤏 ❌Stop rent ur brain to corrupt environmentalists & green scammers 🤢🤢🤮
I think EVs will help but replacing all ICE vehicle with EVs it not the answer and I hope once full self-driving is a reality each EV will be better utilised so fewer vehicles will be needed overall. Also while trains and buses are great the costs involve are huge, especially with new train line like we have seen with HS2 costing billions, and we have also become so accustomed to person transport its hard to move people away from it without a viable alternative.
With alternative energy sources getting cheaper and better like renewable energy, and as battery tech continues to get better and cheaper, it's chipping away at the fossil industry. Since Russia invaded Ukraine, the pace of change is happening faster, especially in the EU, US and China, the 3 major markets around the world, and where they go, the rest will likely follow. There's also reports going around that by 2026, it could be economically cheaper to go off the grid with renewable energy on-site, I knew that was going to happen at some point, but I didn't think it could happen so soon, and who wouldn't want to cut out all the middle men when it comes to the energy we create and consume? It would likely work out a lot cheaper for us all long term. As for the fossil industry, they can play the games all they want, the problem for them now is that if they try to bump up the price or cut supplies, it's playing right into the hands of the renewable industry, which would end up killing the fossil industry sooner rather than later and if the fossil industry is smart, they really need to reduce the price and have a more stable output for the world, but what they are doing is pushing governments around the world to more or less kill that industry for cost reasons, but more important, energy security. It's going to be interesting to see the energy mix over the next decade or two, because it's looking like big changes are on their way, especially in the big markets and quite frankly, it's long overdue, considering we've got organisations like OPEC that fixes the price and supple.
i'm living in the philippines, beautiful country, if only it hadn't been destroyed by people. as for the whole burning of fossil fuels and clean energy here, it's shocking to be on the roads anywhere here; nearly all vehicles are DIRTY diesels, the roads are full of smoke from vehicle emissions, and nearly every vehicle on the road is some gigantic SUV or pickup truck. in addition to that, people are burning plastics and green leaves and wood every day, rather than composting, all organic matter is burned, along with plastics, pvc, and all trash, smoldering rather than burning, and it's like this everywhere i've been. i see no push and no will to live a cleaner greener lifestyle here. no one seems to care about all the smoke in the air. none of the authorities enforce the laws regarding environmental pollution, and the vehicles are getting bigger and dirtier all the time. if there are other places in the world like this too, we're so fucked(and i know there are).
There is reason to hope that a tipping point has been reached with regard to renewable energy. The economics will drive adoption regardless of the worst efforts of the fossil fuel lobby.
@@Doug-tc2px Hi Doug, of course it costs money to go green, it costs money to do anything. The point is it now costs more to persist with fossil fuels than adopt renewables. Hint - it’s not wind power that has kept fuel prices so high in the UK……..
In France transition policies are spreading out nation wide, at an incredible rate .. my job will be to convince the public that we have the solutions to "reduce" our green gas emissions , and that the solutions are in their hands.. Energetic transition could be a way out.. But how do we thrive in convincing others and changing our habits while we see trillions spent on war equipment, and other crazy "innovations", produced with you know what ... its as if no one gives a damn about the futur generations really, what i could understand seeing the last report on methane outburst... my vision is that we need a world wide revolution if we want to see a real change .. bring technicians and scientists to replace the scammers we are facing.. even if its too late !
I've heard that 30% + efficiency solar panels have been around for some time now. These newer more efficient solar panels would produce 50%+ more electricity than current solar panels that have efficiency ratings averaging less than 20%. So why aren't these being mass produced?
Now the trolls have given up telling us climate-change is 'garbage' to harp on that it's 'too late' to do anything. Ignore them at the very least or give them a figurative middle finger, they don't deserve anything more than that.
There is no modern life without oil. And I don't refer to just the burning part of it. Everything (literally) is made either from oil or by burning oil.
This is the first year that there is at least a glimmer of hope on the energy transition front. It seems that in spite of our governments disruptive technologies are making a breakthrough.
The only realistic replacement for Fossil Fuel energy is nuclear power . Increases in the availability of wind and solar are great but it is necessary to employ nuclear power until the problem of intermittency of sun and solar is solved and solved entirely .
Hi and thanks a lot for your excellent show week by week! In my mind it's nice to talk about the future of our climate. But it is otiosely too. So let's roll up our sleeves and let's go on doing :-)
I believe that economic problems, an aging population with fewer children and grandchildren will lead to more opposition against extra cost for a clean energy transition. This can be already observed in the latest elections in Europe. So it might be that some countries start to revoke their commitments in GHG emissions. These decisions could act like a first of domino pieces and more and more countries will reduce or give up their goals. I am not in favor of this, but I sense that it is not unlikely.
You must keep in mind that energy production from fossil fuels is actually very expensive. As Dave has reported, total subsidies for fossil fuels amount to 7% of global GDP. Oil extraction refining and transport uses something like 15% of all electricity generated, and so this is a big slice of the energy pie that will not need to be replaced. The total cost of energy production will be much lower after the energy transition. Any government that fails to tell you this is working for fossil fuel companies.
Batteries are one of the biggest draw backs for a lot of people in the EV market. High cost, low range, and safety. The new promise batteries should fix that in all three areas with solid state + sulfur batteries once they hit the market for cars. Na over Li will also help in the market for batteries for both local and grid power storage too. All this should hit in around the next 5 years with a few of them already hitting small scale production right now or the next 2 years. Once that happen, almost all new cars will be EV, cost about the same as ICE or less than, and be as safe as an ICE car. Sure there will be some problems here and there, but ICE also has them too. More storage on the GRID also means we can control the "base load" better and know when we will need to keep the peeker plants running well within 24hrs of a period of time. That also means we save money at the grid level too because instead of purchasing Oil or Gas to another country, it all hits locally instead feeding the machine for inner growth. Oil countries will start to have less demand - so they will be most hurt once we drop the need. This all benefits the climate because of less Co2, but it helps our wallets more than that.
Interesting that a majority of IEA member nations are also NATO members. To me, that suggests the annual _World Energy Outlook_ publication is ideologically driven as opposed to scientifically sound.
So if you wanted to understand food production and its demands, would talking to a farmer be a good idea? Or would you believe a set of governments if they told you food demands were going to level off? I'd actually have more faith in OPEC properly estimating demand for fossil fuels over government policy projections. The latter has been wrong 100% of the time for 60 years.
I dunno I maybe kindof actually feel like a teensy bit better hearing this? 500GW of clean energy in 2023, I was surprised by the size of that one. Is this going exponential? Only 5 more doublings to 16TW isn't that the amount we need?
It is going exponential, but caution that the S curve is for wind and solar replacing fossil fuels in new installations, so we will see a slowdown as they are at 80% of new capacity.
Thanks again Dave for a great video. Unless we in the west can urgently change our political system we have a gigantic corporate- political problem. Getting the money out of politics is essential if the living world is to survive. It's not a climate and environmental problem, the world has a political problem financed by banks, our tax dollars, digital debt and all the other usual suspects. I don't see the mega corporations and MIC giving up their power and priviledge easily. Populations must resist the pathological greed of the elites on the streets. As a philosopher said, I saw V for Vendetta, the film I really want to see is V for Vendetta Part 2- Slavoj Žižek
I couldn't agree more. Money equals power, including power to largely shape what the public even believes. Very hard to stall climate change when large portions of the public are convinced the crisis is a cynical hoax. 🫣
The elephant in the room is that we need to move to a less consumer-oriented society and economy. We simple cannot replace fossil fuels by renewables and expect to keep wasting energy at the the current level. As mentioned briefly: not owning a car is the best means of reduction. If you really need a car, then share it with other people. If you need on a daily basis, reconsider what you’re doing, and vote for a government that fixes public transport.
I'm heartened that the rate of switch is outstripping their estimates from even a few years ago. Hopefully we'll see more of those kinds of positive feedback loops.
it's always an S-curve of adoption.. just watch Tony Seba on the matter. We're still accelerating, which means the adoption curve hasn't entered the most vertical raising part yet - which is good as this means those adoption rates will increase even further and only slow down once 75-80% of the system has been converted.
@@joansparky4439 Not really sure we'll see a significant slowdown at 80%. At that point, the economics will be so obviously in favour of renewable, I'm hard pressed to believe in much of a use case for fossil fuels.
@ mrleenudler u're either very young or not working in an engineering/technical field. My experience (25 years engineering) and what I gather from others is that the last 20-10% are the slowest/most expensive to convert for various reasons. In this context it is because even with economic superiority of RE it's still not viable to replace those last lingering existing systems as the ROI is negative if one does so.. things like that will take ages or simply be run into the ground and never be converted. It's no big deal anyway.. it's much more important to roll out RE to all those places in the world that don't have any reliable yet at all.. like Africa. So don't fret, it will sort itself out.
@@joansparky4439 ideally those last 20-10% will have "green" fuel options, that governments can choose to subsidize/tax fuel enough to make the green option the cheaper option in those situations. I expect to see wide-spread nuclear adoption sooner than any state with active oil drilling gets to that point (TX, CA, OK, etc), and I do not expect nuclear can ever get over the stigma it has, which means solar/wind are the only serious bet to make.
@ gregw1076 Yes, whatever works.. green fuels might be an option, like methanol for example. As for nuclear - it's expensive as it needs many specialists to keep it running and safe, while the RE alternative are simpler and thus cheaper. It's simple economics. Only for applications that need high energy density (power / weight) and are far from RE energy sources those will be a solution.. so mostly space or very harsh environments here on Earth. The other downside of nuclear is the control over the energy supply they provide for a few people, who naturally are incentivized to (ab)use this for their own benefit (maxing out profit).. with RE this simply doesn't work (much much more competition, thus lower prices for the consumer).
The demographic I'd like to see improved is getting ppl with no electric at all with solar panels and a 5v-12v sysyem for essentials like lighting, charging cell phones, fans, and possibly electric mosquito control. Having lived in the developing world, I know what a difference this could make. Refridgeration is oddly a low priority bc most food is eaten the same day it's brought home.
I’m interested to read your comment because I invest in energise Africa. This scheme has small scale green electrification projects and other stuff. Quite often it has stand alone systems that let people have light and phone charging. Previously I’ve wondered how effective my investments might have been but your comment is really heartening.
I have been investing some money in solar in developing countries through a Swedish company called Trine. You basically invest in loans to local solar companies in Africa and lately also in South America and Asia. These install solar for both private customers and companies. Feels like a meaningful way to invest money, and your comment made it feel even better.
8:17 I think its important to note that much of "China's" emissions REALLY belong to the USA and other countries who have THEIR goods manufactured oveseas.
@@JeremySpidle - That could be helpful, but it would be very difficult to assign the various *embodied emissions* to the final country. More to the point, the final country has nothing to do with the laws (and law enforcement) governing emissions in foreign countries, where things are often produced. Additional complications arise from differences in emissions capture (if any), how and how well captured emissions are accounted and sequestered, who pays the marginal extra cost, and when they pay... if ever. Also there is the problem of goods that are never sold, first by the manufacturer, and then by the final seller. It would mean a LOT of extra work if it was possible at all, since the "free market" economy is *inherently **_a race to the bottom_* in many ways. It would all become a gruesome game of Whack-a-Mole as people wanting to gain market share tried to bypass the whole thing by moving manufacturing around among various countries. Many countries do not have the kind of rule-of-law that would be required.
OK, Dave, it'd be good if you could stick around for another 6 years or so then in order to revisit this to see just who was closer to the mark. Stick a note on your calendar, if you would. I see so many making predictions about the future along the way but very few performing reviews of the past. As the OPEC boy says there, "...fossil fuels continue to make up over 80% of the global energy mix, the same as 30 years ago", so who can say who's being the more realistic here. Maybe it's true, and in 2030 it's still true. That being the case I'd at least be more inclined to believe one side or another when the same-old shite's being argued 6 years from now, as it has been for the last 30 years.
Anyone who has been following cleantech for a while and is on top of trends in the energy world can tell you without a doubt that the OPEC guy is full of it. The IEA is underestimating the speed of the energy transition as they historically have.
@@incognitotorpedo42 I follow for 15 years and hydrocarbons consumption is still going up and will probably do so for another decade. Best case coal will start to decline when China will be unable to sustain production later this decade but there is no sign for oil and natural gas to slow down. Reneweble are still too slow and don't meet even net global energy consumption increse every year. OPEC are probably right.
Let's not celebrate the 500 GW of new green installed capacity as this is equal to only 0.017% of annual global energy consumption. In fact, this level of deployment does not even keep up with organic growth let alone retiring any fossil fuel infrastructure. And once again, this channel fails to acknowledge that wind and solar are infeasible without grid-scale energy storage of which there is no even close economically viable solution. Why do we keep pushing on these dead ends? Until the western world comes to grips with nuclear energy as the only viable green source, there is a little to be optimistic about here.
We need to start thinking about this possibility, that our ruling class/richest people may decide they can use their personal wealth to hunker down and wait out the chaos that man made climate change will bring, If this is a possibility they are making a catastrophic mistake as one of the first big crashes from climate change will be the global economy and the whole structure of wealth we have created, Lets hope fossil fuel lobbies don't win out and drive that particular future civilizational crash!
Wait for what? The 3 degree scenario isn't some sort of plateau we just have to get to... it represents a situation where life will be a permanent struggle against a vastly increased amount of energy in the planet's ecosphere, expressed in storms, heat, fire, flood and more. There is no "steady state" to wait for. I do agree that if we don't do enough there will be forms of chaos while all the human infrastructure (and much of the agriculture) is repeatedly battered while millions of people die (as thousands have already done), but unless the rich adapt by e.g. going underground, colonizing space, there is no safe space for money to buy access to. Of course, in the interim they will try....
Climate change threatens the lives, homes, and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of individual humans, but our *_species_* is in very little danger of going extinct in the foreseeable future. We're omnivorous enough to insert ourselves pretty much anywhere in the food web; we can live entirely off of algae, yeast byproducts, and mealworms if we have to. It's all the *_other_* species, with their biology finely tuned to very specific ecological niches, that are going to have a really rough time of it.
I’m not terribly concerned about extinction from climate change. I’m concerned about *catastrophe* from climate change (I define “catastrophe” as the unexpected deaths of over a billion people; but most definitions will be similar to that if you think about it). A billion people dying of famine or warfare in a short period would be absolutely unprecedented. On the other hand, just 200 years ago, the global population was only 1 billion, we didn’t have significant fossil fuel consumption or most of what we think of as “technology” today, but we had a sophisticated global civilization. Even a human race recovering from a massive catastrophe (say, 50% deaths) would still have all the tools and machinery we’ve built so far, and all the knowledge that has been written down. Every solar panel made for 50 years or so would still work. Roads would still be in place. Etc. Don’t confuse the danger of catastrophe with the danger of extinction. They’re not the same thing.
I don't think extinction is in the cards. It is possible that every economy fails, every government falls, and a billion people starve to death. But this would bring the warming to an abrupt end, and leave the survivors to pick up the pieces. How many generations would it take for some kind of peaceful and democratic system to emerge from the aftermath? I wonder. But, I am optimistic that much of that will be avoided. If we can shut down the cult of the supposed free market, and wrest control of policy from the oil companies, and avoid too many fascist takeovers, there is time to turn things around. All of these things are possible, with some effort and organization.
China's impact isn't a surprise however as they are the manufacturer of the world, it would be interesting to see how much of the carbon produced is for domestic products and how much for export and further still how much China produce for each external country (ie, how much carbon has China created for the goods we, in the UK, want).
If each product gets carbon footprint declaration and it is added to consumer / consumer country footprint ... different story then. It is not far away, we would get carbon footprint printed on grocery store bill. And one step furder is tax on carbon footprint.
I will not count on China deceleration how much they build new solar panel and wind farm as many thing are build for show. You can see from satellite big renewal energy farm that are not connected to energy greed. Hundred of thousands of new electric car that are park in the farmer fields. new green grass lands that are soil paired with oil base paint. You can find on RU-vid many example. Chinas communist party chatting there own people and the whole world.
@@tg_privat Still falling for the oil industry con of shifting the blame to the consumers. Also, China has no intention of decarboning for at least 25 years, and they are already producing more co2 than the next 3 nations combined. And their EV/solar/wind usage is a smoke screen, most ev's made (and sold, so added to the sales figures) are rotting in fields, and the wind and solar dont actually work (but still added to the figures)
@@tg_privat I'm down for a carbon tax. The day foreign foods and goods become the same price as local food and goods, the better. I also like the idea because it means the gov isn't stopping us from having a big footprint but giving us and businesses the choice. The caveat (for me) is as long as the money is used on decarbonising projects.
@@jonovens7974 i agree with you on the oil industry propaganda but we have to keep in mind that if you use per capita data, China is nowhere near the top carbon producer. With China its far more about a political thing, given we 'need' their low cost goods and so the debates get over polarised.
Do you actually think someone who is struggling to put food on the table give a shit about net zero when they are starving. But according to you this green energy is so cheap that we will be wealthy. I'm all for a new energy source, but thinking wind and solar will replace fossil in the next few year is crazy. Our government here in Canada put a carbon tax on fossil fuels, and that's done is increase inflation and put thousands at risk of losing their homes because of the higher interest. It doesn't stop fuel usage because we are a large country that needs fuel for transportation. And electric vehicles don't work the vast majority of the population.
Agreed. Energy is the foundational cost of all goods and services. When you raise the price of energy you raise the price of everything. It's the worst way to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Considering that fuel industry practically now tries to torpedo it, it will get much heated politically as well. Some people pointed out that fossil companies have stopped to pretend they care - their PR campaigns have ended. Basically they decided that they can't push back that way anymore, so they are switching to buy out politicians and influence peddlers. That will introduce serious drag to whole thing. I think saving grace is that renewable technology market have gotten to R&D plato which makes private investments much safer and thus ensuring continued development. Of course, there might be time when fossil fuel companies will try to buy them out. But I suspect majority will be interested in new ways to grow and will transition themselves. As how much of all this will save us from above 2.5C, I really not sure. Governments have to look into survival tech as well. I don't think South Europe will be livable during summers after 10 - 15 years. As for CO2 collection, yeah, that was just market response to fossil companies looking for easy way out. Btw, CO2 capture tech during heavy manufacturing would make sense though.
Fossil fuel companies have power to stop any energy transition. None at all. If there were an economically viable alternative, they would be the first in line to rebrand themselves as energy firms and install the heck out of it. If you want to see how serious our leadership class is about an energy transition or AGW, just look to how they live their lives. I will start taking this seriously when I see them taking it seriously. Meanwhile, just relax and enjoy the seasonal climate change that happens every year to bring us summer.
Thanks for the video. These sorts of breakdowns and analyses are so helpful. They precis complicated documents and more importantly contextualise them really well. I appreciate the time and effort you take to make them and wish you well on your week off!
It is still problematic. But around 2000 I investigated energy thoroughly, more in relation to peak oil than climate. Also in 1980 my father installed a windmill on our house. One thing is for sure, at that time replacing fossil fuels looked way way way more difficult.
The risk today isn't so much peak oil it is the lack of investment in new supply, I read one stat. that said we need to find and develop the equivalent of 3 Saudi Arabia in the next 10 years to sustain demand. Most people I read in this area believe we are in for much higher oil prices this decade, prices may go down in the short run as we enter a global recession....
The reserves are proven and available. It's more like Alberta, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia the Big 3 oil regions don't want to lose their wealth and status as global power brokers. How would I know? I'm an 4G Albertan stuck under a Petro-f*scist maroon of a premier who is crazier than a raving derelict on a streetcorner... Because she's usually friends with them... @@Doug-tc2px
@@Doug-tc2px What are the assumptions that lead to the idea that we need 3 new Saudi Arabias? Are they assuming that we'll all be driving ICE monster trucks in 2030? The primary use for oil is transportation fuels, and transport is rapidly electrifying. IEA predicts peak fossil demand in 2030. They see global oil supply growing about 6% by 2028.
@lkruljsw, it may have looked more difficult but it wasn't, just more expensive because the economies of scale hadn't happened. All that's new is lithium batteries & Tesla making electric cars sexy again (Jenatzy's _Jamais Contente_ was setting outright land speed records in 1899 & it certainly wasn't the only inspiring electric car) Electric vehicles never went away though they were more popular industrially than domestically for a long time. Everything else was around. Heat pumps are fridges, just industrial size, electric vehicles were developed in the same era as steam & long before internal combustion, windmills are as old as the hills, even PV solar panels were around, insulation, all the modern stuff, really isn't new.
Just have a think, The international Energy Agency sounds an impressive title but their knowledge and understanding of energy is severly lacking. Fatih Birol is totally delusional and does not understand what is involved. There is no transition away from fossil fuels, the expansion of renewable generation is less than the increase in the demand for power. China and India's expansion of coal generation is huge and will continue. Renewables are a dead end and a diversion from sensible power solutions.
You need to understand exponentials to understand the energy transition. The adoption of key technologies (solar, wind, batteries, electric transportation, electrolyzers, ..) is following an exponential curve thanks to cost improvements.
@@kristofnagy1373 Nuclear is the only generally available source of non CO2 emitting generation that works. That said there is mounting evidence that CO2 is far from being a prime driver of climate change.
I'll take whatever good news I can get ... even if its too little, not enough, too late, for a lot of what's being discussed ... net zero and 1.5 degrees is still a dream.
so they want to take away my natural gas stove, water heater, fire heat that make my life economically possible and put in place electrical requirements that are a burden on every system and person in the community. At the same time I see weekly miles long coal trains going to the steam plant just outside of my community and crude oil trains going to the refinery just north of me. And they talk about a strategic change of consumption... how insulting! My minor use that does not do nearly the damage as the afore mentioned makes me just easy picking and low lying fruit because I no longer have a say in my government of corporate donations. I bought into what was called the transition fuel of natural gas and now am targeted as low lying fruit and must suffer the initial brunt of burden for change...
Greed is at the root of at least 90 pct of the problems in our world. Greed, and its unwholesome bedmate: Lust for Power. With those two in charge, there is no room for common sense, fairness, or compassion.
25 is a lot. Depends on what you take for left i guess. I belive we have less than 10 years before unprecedented climate issues starts the collapse of our societies. Farming is going to become challenging really fast and the rest will follow. When eating becomes an issue, less time to make the rest of society run smoothly...
I will be happy if we get 5 to be honest. Because things will start to gradually worst for North and Sahara Africa, then South Europe. Tens of millions of refugees. Huge political tensions, and reality checks. There are lot of people who will want to see it trough, but there will be enough who will condemn planet because of them feeling overwhelmed.
Update to fact-check 21 about EVs from the Carbon Network quoted in the video 6:58 No 17 on the list, about EVs catching fire. The report states they are 6 or 7 times less likely to catch fire than a petrol engines car, based on data from Norway, where they have a lot of electric cars. The ratio varies a lot when you look at data from different countries; that really puzzled me. Then I realised pure EVs were being lumped together with hybrids. The ratio of EVs to hybrids varies hugely, country to country. Digging deeper, hybrids are roughly twice as likely to catch fire as petrol internal combustion cars. The true ratio for EVs compared with petrol , when you don’t include hybrids, is that EVs are more than 60 times less likely to catch fire than a petrol car.
The good news is that the IEA is always underestimating the pace of change - usually by a wide margin. One example is the EV market share which is way above their forecasts, so much so that they have substantially "adjusted" their forecast each year. Same applies for wind and solar. This means that the figure of 73% of energy needs from fossil fuels by 2030 wildly overestimates what simple math, with more realistic forecast, shows quite clearly. Frankly, if we are still at 73% by 2030, the planet is in big trouble. Fortunately we will be doing MUCH better than the IEA forecasts. This doesn't mean by any means that we can slow down our efforts to decarbonize.
It does seem that EV sales are accellerating, but I am finding it difficult to find out the total global % of EV vs ICE. If as I supect EV's are still at a single digit % worldwide, then I do wonder how all those ICE owners are going to be able to afford an EV at current prices. I run a petrol car and I simply cannot afford an EV without borrowing, good luck with that. Then there is the charging network (or lack of) in the UK...nuff said!
both PV and EV are way ahead of IEA estimation due to China side dramatic incentive and mass production to quickly cut the cost down. Without that part there is ZERO chance IEA under estimate that much. Even Tesla success almost rely on the Shanghai factory ( a lot of US people will refuse to accept the fact of course). However, with current China side economic conditions, I highly doubt they will have another round massive incentive on some green tech.
being optimistic is always good. but realism is needed in this case. and maybe I am too pessimistic, but the billionaires whose wealth is derived from the extraction of resources will invest heavily in lobbying that will prevent the rapid pace of change this planet needs.
@@JohnnyMotel99 In 2021 it was 8.57% of cars sold. That is IEA numbers. Look for: "Global sales and sales market share of electric cars, 2010-2021 " That propably is up since then and it most certainly has an impact on oil today.
Speaking of misinformation, he kinda perpetuated some given all the "green" numbers coming out of China are manipulated by their government.....fields of solar panels that are not even plugged in can't really help with climate change. Their air pollution is so bad, all their official media must be heavily color-filtered (leading to a blue-tinted saturation). They have FIELDS of electric bikes/scooters/cars just being left to rot, because they were only built to pad the numbers.
The way I try and give context to the improvement of renewable energy sources is: fifteen years ago I opted to put a solar hot water system on my house thinking that solar PV was too expensive and inefficient. Today I wonder if I would be saving more by using the space taken up to make hot water with extra PV panels.
Great video! I always try to remember though that it is not petroleum products that are bad - it is BURNING them that is the problem. We will probably always need hydrocarbons to some extent for plastics, synthetic fabrics (though they create non CO2 problems like microplastics) and lubricants of course. I DO object to all the negative press about EVs. I drive a Tesla and can confirm that NONE of the negatives popularly spread about EVs are true.
You drive a Tesla and solemnly declare that you've had no issues therefore there are no issues with EVs. The ones that catch fire destroying entire shipments don't exist because you've had no issues with yours. I'm sure the enslaved kids digging for cobalt in Congo are happy you've had no issues with the car their efforts contributed to.
Great video, it's nice when people acknowledge the good we are doing, not just the bad. We are at a tipping point, investment into renewables are looking better and better by the day, 10 years ago there was a CHANCE that you'd break even putting up solar, now there is no question about it. We are quickly getting things like home battery grid solutions and ever cheaper solar panels with increasing efficiency. I'm 100% positive that when we look 10 years into the future, the gradually cheaper battery storage will make solar and wind even more attractive, and fossil fuel driven cars even less so. In my opinion the key here is to ride this wave, don't do what greenpeace wants, I know it sounds good, but it'll make people resent their governments, slow down economy and increase resistance, simply keep putting the research dollars into batteries and renewables, and they will be so much cheaper than fossil fuels that anyone would think you stupid for even suggesting pumping expensive oil instead of putting up cheap solar/wind/nuclear + battery.
Laughable. Renewables are proving to be massively expensive, mainly because the attempt is being made to get reliable electricity out of inherently unreliable weather-based systems.
@@AuJohnM Did you miss the word nuclear in there? Also, solar is a good investment here, and with the rapid progress in batteries, solar + battery will be king for homes
@@1whitecottagelife770 Enough that I own my house, I'll let you think what that might mean. Of course the answer won't be a "BUY!!!" for everyone financially, it depends on some factors, like do you need to have it on your roof? How handy are you? Most people nowdays can't even hammer a nail in, while others just need to buy the solar panels and get the final installation approved by the power company and an electrician. How do you heat your house? Do you cool your house? What does your local power companies let you do with the extra power you produce? Do you get tax breaks from producing your own power or do you still pay tax on it? For me I heat with a heatpump, I put the solar panels on the ground in a stand I made myself, I did the cable work except the connections which my power company did. I use it to run AC in the summer. We can sell any excess and we get pretty fair pay (30%), that is later deducted from future bills when I'm over. It'll take 9 years to pay for itself, warranty for the panels go to 20 years. They are self heating for the winter.
Not to forget Walter Jehne and Tony Lovell and Dwayne Beck and how a shift in agriculture can have a major impact on sequestering Co2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis by green plants
For all the talk about energy, I wonder if you looked deeper into the question of metals. It seems their availability (extraction, etc) is becoming more and more of a concern among specialists, especially with the increase of renewables, which require lots of copper or more exotic metals. It's a kind of catch-22 situation, where the solutions out of fossil fuels would just hit the wall of metals rarity. Just have a think?
It's not a rarity problem, just the extraction and refinement capacity will be lagging behind demand for a couple of years. This will limit the rate of change of course.
I'm starting to wonder if we in fact had peak oil in 2019? Covid, China's economy crashing, electric cars etc might mean we never get back to that level.
In 2023 we used a bit more than in 2019. Usage is expected to rise a bit more before falling permanently. Peak oil demand will probably happen before 2030.
When did China's economy crash? Lol. You mean because their growth slowed from 8% to 5%? You realise that leaders can only dream of 5% growth. And you call that a crash.. haha, what a dunce..
6:50 Because I am an EV enthusiast, whenever I go to Yahoo's main page its always packed with EV articles. Almost every article is about the downfall of evs and how car companies are abandoning them in droves. Yet when I read the actual article it states no such thing, or uses some odd metric to judge the data.
Precisely. It is the epitome of an information war right now. The market is nevertheless unstoppable. We will look back n this period in a decade from now and chuckle at how silly it all was (assuming we're all still alive!) ;-)
It really looks like this is going to be painful. What politicians fail to accomplish will be resolved by Mother Nature who will send enough climate catastrophes to reduce population until balance is restored. We once had a choice, now it has to be the hard way. Every step we make will help but it will still be painful. That means we must try harder to minimize the pain. Sadly the pain will be heavily borne by the innocent and the poor. The wealthiest who are most guilty will buy their way through to some degree as they can just get on their yachts and move as needed. Those on foot in the equatorial regions will be caught with the droughts and famine and other of the four horsemen even as their carbon footprint has been small.
The mostly unrecognized immune system destroying aspects of COVID and the hyper accelerated aging it causes may be the thing that saves the remnants of humanity that survive to endure.
You should check out the new battery factories in both Sweden and Norway and as both countries have very low CO2 emissions from the electricity those countries produce
And same with Quebec thanks to hydro power. It's getting a massive battery factory there for the same reason... A nearly 100% Carbon-free electrical grid in the province already...
I like ideology ability to completely ignore reality. And people thinking that it not engendering and resource problem, but only policy problem. If anyone will be explained what HE personally will need to give up and endure to reach climate goals, you will have bo takers for this beside complete fanatics... There is number of studies that show that there is literally not enough materials can be mined in given time just because it technically impossible, not mentioned environmental impact and - surprise! fossil fuels needed to make that mining work - because no one hawe a full scale solution for mining run on electricity - and you need get decent ammoungh of it 24/7 to make it work, so solar and wind won't help you here... To many empty words from climate alarmists and no working plan. Pure ideological bsht with best intensions, though.
We certainly have everything we need. Except for the fact that political will and power is held captive by private market interest. Just Have A Think, meet Second Thought
Do you have a battery that doesn't spontaneously combust when slightly damaged and doesn't degrade with normal use? Do you have a way to fulfill the world's energy needs (carbon free, of course) without sending 90% of the planet's population to the stone age?
@@davidmenasco5743 Thank you for playing, but you missed the point. As bad as our dependence on oil is, the CURRENT alternative is much worse. He wants to sacrifice, maybe, a slightly shorter average human life span for a certain much shorter average human lifespan. The authoritarian governments the OP is clamoring for won't create a better future for humanity, but a much darker one where a lot of people will starve.. The measures you people want implemented might not even prevent the thing you're afraid of, yet you ask for them without a second thought.
If somebody will compare OPEC+ countries to the democracy index list, many of them are not exactly democratic. So switching to renewables is good to not only for environment, but also will stop the cashflow to the hands of authoritarian regimes.
It won't be exponential change. The treasuries of the richest economies aren't big enough to continue subsidizing the growth of renewables, let alone exponential growth.
@@joemccarthy7120Subsidies are no longer necessary. Wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels. Subsidies can still be very helpful, but renewables are going to displace fossil fuels no matter how much it vexes you. And it's a good thing, because it will reduce energy costs in the long term, clean up the air, and save your grandkids a FORTUNE.
Sadly, "clean energy" still requires the use of minerals that are in very short supply and are coming more under the control of China, who are buying up mining interests in Africa. Cobalt, required for Lithium based batteries is primarily sourced from PDR Congo where it is mined with scant regard for safety or welfare of the miners. The cake is sent to China for processing. The human rights aspect of this is very clear. We have a long way to go before we can use the word "clean" with any confidence.
I know the OPEC Sec. General has a vested interestt in the proliferation of fossil fuels but does this guy judt not understand the indpustable fact of the mattter that fossil fuels are finite? i mean, eventually, we will HAVE to make an energy transition, whether he likes it or not.
The grid in America is 23% renewables. With bi-directional charging coming to ev's everwhere could you do a vid on the state of grids in major countries.
I don't have a specific number because "it depends"... how much sun/wind/water is available, but in the UK it is not at all uncommon to see 40% renewable. The UK grid has on multiple occasions now hit 0% fossil fuel for a week or more, mostly on the back of wind generation with nuclear, wind, solar making up the mix. Solar generation is shown as a much lower % in grid statistics but I suspect that household and business generation is not included (so only explicit solar farms) - because the power doesn't go to/from the grid. Based on my own solar kit, I would expect those with solar panels are achieving >50% solar averaged across the year.
@@rivimeySee the reports on South Australia, where they are apparently at or near 100% renewable most of the time, mainly solar. Solar power is quite big down under.
Really appreciate your helpful summary of this IEA report - their regular updates are so vital but not easy to digest. I saw Sir David King speak at this week’s Net Zero Festival and was pretty freaked out by his take on the melting Greenland ice sheet (could take only 2 decades to melt and methane release could raise temps by 5-8 degrees - strewth!). Not sure if you’ve covered this before - it would be good to hear your views too.
@@tims9434 Patreon perks, getting the video earlier through links. The video is officially published today but is uploaded (though unlisted) a day ago or so.
Climate change is a religion and nothing more. CO2 cant warm the climate. If you look back 20.000 years ago the sealevel was 120 meters lower. Humanity will become slaves thanks to CO2. Slaves slaves slavery thats all there will be
I'm sure Sir David King was not suggesting that an ice sheet 1600 miles long, 600 miles wide and 2 miles deep was going to melt within two decades! That would be impossible without an asteroid the size of Great Britain directly hitting it at 10,000kph. I suspect what Sir David was saying was that we may well pass a tipping point within two decades that will make the process of melting inevitable and irreversible - that is certainly the latest science that I am aware of anyway. It'll still take hundreds, perhaps thousands of years to completely melt away. This link is a reasonable explanation www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/03/230327163212.htm#:~:text=%22Most%20of%20the%20ice%20sheet,to%20work%20against%20it%20anymore.%22&text=Story%20Source%3A,provided%20by%20American%20Geophysical%20Union.
I am trying to remain carless for as long as possible. I am currently 27 and only occasionally use a carsharing service. Living in the Netherlands, with great public transit, there is no excuse to buy a car anymore. Another benefit of traveling with public transit is the time i can spend making calls, writing emails or relaxing while traveling. I believe that with conscience lifestyle choices we can evade most emissions.
@@malcolm8564everybody drives a car there. The Netherlands have even more cars-per-people than Germany! And, considering the size of the country and the small distances, they drive their cars a lot more than the average European... It's all lies and BS.
A little less doom-laden than of late, Dave. Thanks for that - we'll take what cheer we can! So I do feel a little churlish when I point out that figures I have seen about the rise in green energy indicate that it has not replaced fossils fuels but just increased the use of energy overall. Please tell me I'm wrong!
What has happened is that the capacity to fully replace fossil fuels has been developing very quickly, and now the increasing adoption rates of wind and solar are about to seriously reduce the need for fossil fuels. It's been a long time coming, but the momentum has been built up such that it will be very hard to turn back now. There are, in addition, two factors waiting in the wings that are rarely discussed. One: Oil extraction refining and transport uses a HUGE amount of energy, something like 15% of total electricity generation. So this is a slice of the energy pie that will not have to be replaced. Second, as vehicle fleets are switched to battery electric, the grid stabilizing effect and storage capacity of certain types of fleets, such as school busses (in the US) or other industrial or domestic fleets will have a transformative impact on generation requirements. In the US, I think it'll be about four or five years until this becomes really widely recognized, as more school districts electrify. The world is going to change so much in these next five years.
@@davidmenasco5743 MY CONCERN IS THE LACK OF FOSSIL FUELS TO SUPPLY THE FARM EQUIPMENT AND NATURAL GAS TO SUPPLY THE ONLY PRODUCTION OF AMMONIA NEEDED TO FEED THE EVER GROWING WORLD POPULATION!
Thank you as always. Great information! I hope we can rapidly scale up these strategies. Through high insulation we have not turned on our natural gas heater for 2 winters. We prefer renewably powered electricity. Next year hopefully an air sourced heat pump.
@@PazLeBon Transitioning from fossil fuel powered grids to renewably powered grids is far more sustainable, greener, allowing us to phase out air pollution and carbon emissions.
I hate to be cynical but "doing the right thing" is always just an aspirational dream for humanity. Money is always the determining factor in our decisions, and that is why the fossil fuel industry is doomed. Mankind is moving away from fossil fuels not because it is the right thing to do, but because it has become cheaper to produce energy with wind and solar power when it is coupled with battery storage technology. What is keeping the fossil fuel industry afloat today is the bottleneck in the production of these new technologies, and that bottleneck won't last forever. Increased production of wind, solar, and battery production is driving down the cost constantly. The fossil fuel industry hasn't a chance of survival for more than a decade.
How much oil is used in the production of "renewable" technology? I suspect (but don't know) that oil is going to be valuable for a long time. We just won't burn it once as often as we do now.
@@rfrisbee1 Currently, you could reasonably say the world runs on oil but as we see, the availability of new technologies is shifting towards electric vehicles. From skateboards to big trucks, electricity is becoming the cheapest fuel available. There are big-horsepower electric boat motors now. Soon there will be battery powered airplanes transporting millions of people across the oceans. This is the greatest industrial revolution since the beginning of the iron age. We are witnessing history in the making. This is exciting times for humanity. We will continue to use petroleum products for many decades, but its use as fuel is ending.
Thanks for another great video. I'm going to miss you next Sunday. As for the climate emergency, I think it's going to get more urgent in many people's minds as the negative consequences begin to kick in. We'll see more stringent commitments to emissions reduction and societies begin to distance themselves from the fossil fuel industry (much as we've distanced ourselves from the tobacco industry) as the financial and human costs of climate change become harder to ignore. The fossil fuel companies will probably try to convince us that nothing can be done and we should focus on trying to adapt to the changes instead of preventing them, but the negative consequences will be so pronounced that argument won't carry much weight in the end. At least I hope not. As you point out in the video, guiding developing nations onto a path of using sustainable energy for their rapid economic growth instead of cheap and dirty fossil fuels is already a huge challenge, and it will become more and more important in the near future. Once again it's possible to see an analogy to the tobacco industry. When smoking began to decline in the developed nations tobacco companies turned to the developing ones for their revenue growth, and the same thing will happen with fossil fuels if we don't prevent it.
Fossil fuels are very expensive and people in developing countries are well aware of the fact. In the long term, the total cost of energy production will be much lower after the energy transition. I think these two facts will lead to much quicker adoption of renewables on a global scale than most people expect.
I hope so. That is a good way of looking at things. It makes it easier to amortize the expense of electrification (that is, costs like rebuilding the grid) when people can see they'll be spending less overall on energy when it's done.
As long as the corporate world is allowed to implement carbon credit work around of process improvements the world will not reduce carbon output. No one wants EV's solely for transportation so options are required for load and distance transportation.
If total energy consumption goes up, reducing the share of fossil fuels from 80% to 73% could mean burning MORE fossil fuels, not less. We should be looking at the total volume of emissions, not slices of an ever growing pie.
Yes, but. We should also be looking at trends, and not worrying as much about the numbers at a given moment. Right now, solar is doubling every 2-3 years, and has been doing so for over a decade now. And grid scale battery tech is advancing to demonstrated production scale, which means it can keep up. EVs are more than doubling every two years. A decade from now at this rate, coal will be gone and gasoline will be fading fast. Don’t just look at growth. Look at relative rates of growth. I’d rather be in second place and going twice as fast.
@@LoisoPondohva It does. But what is the finish line? Putting fossil fuel into decline? That will happen in the next five years probably. Completely eliminating fossil fuels? That means not just grid power and wheeled transportation, but really challenging problems like shipping and aircraft. But I’ll call it a “win” when fossil fuel is a minority of wheeled vehicles and we have a year when no coal plants are built anywhere in the world.
Even if fossil fuels peaked, the decline might be pretty slow. The percentage of renewables will increase. But there's always the issue of needing dis-patchable sources in one's portfolio. Fossil fuels, are currently the most convenient form. I'm looking for low carbon alternatives.
Hydrogen, ammonia, solid iron fuel dust, bioethanol, biomethane, waste burning etc etc There's enough alternatives, we just have to grow the balls to switch to them (and invest, research and develop)
@@thomasdam9916 quite a few years ago the supermarket price of veg oil ramped up because they noticed people were putting it in their Diesel cars (it burns very nicely but can dissolve rubber parts).
There are many ways to store energy. Fundamentally though you need to start from the fact that we can't use the fossil fuels and survive and then work out what we can have without them. Starting from the assumption that we are entitled to our current lifestyles is how you get billions of dead. When Bush said the American Way Of Life was not negotiable he was correct: it's simply impossible. There's no negotiating with that.
@@Timlagor it's the source of the energy & fuels that's the problem (initially) & we have solutions on the market for all of it, all we have to do is switch over & it's happening though possibly not fast enough.
