John Doerr and Ryan Panchadsaram: An action plan for solving the climate crisis | TED Countdown 

@@ZennExile Solar energy isn't permanently available that's the problem. At night we need to rely on storage, wind, hydro or nuclear. People way in the past who dumped nuclear waste into the sea and didn't store it properly are an unfair comparison to today's regulated standards. The fact that nuclear waste can be safely stored as concentrated waste is a feature not a bug. Nuclear emissions aren't dumped into the atmosphere like an open sewer, heating up our planet and getting into our lungs. 75% of France's energy is nuclear, it's worked well for them. The Germans stupidly shut down their nuclear plants early in favour of renewables, now they can't produce enough energy and are using *more* natural gas than before. Here are the death rates per TWh produced from (our world in data): Solar 0.02, Hydro 0.02, Wind 0.04, Nuclear 0.07, Gas 2.82, Biomass 4.63, Oil 18.43, Coal 24.62, Brown Coal 32.72.

@@ZennExile Lower your tone. You sound like a parody of a basement dwelling RU-vid commenter. You need to ramp to an entirely renewable energy system, you can't just do it overnight, it would be a decade or even with full investment. Other forms of energy will be needed to offset fossil fuels. As I wrote, look at Germany they've become reliant on more fossil fuels since since shutting off their nuclear plants, they've also become more reliant on Russia making them more soft on them politically. The notion that nations shouldn't keep their nuclear plants because of *saftey* is absurd. Most of France's energy has been clear of GHGs because of nuclear, and its been safer than fossil fuels, they've been less politically reliant on human rights abusing states like Russia, Saudi Arabia etc. "Theres no need whatsoever for storage" You don't think we need battery storage for solar power? That would be needlessly expensive. You understand that solar is intermittent right? Energy would be way cheaper by using a combination of solar, wind and battery storage.

@@ZennExile What?

@@ZennExile 🤣 Did you delete the comment I made to you on the other Ted video where you tried to bash Veganism and I corrected you?

@@ZennExile The irony of complaining about nuclear energy density while supporting solar as if the sun was not reliant on the very processes of why nuclear energy is enticing...... What isn’t being considered in your evaluation really comes down to two issues: 1. Energy reliability 2. Additional material needed The principal concern for solar is that if you add a very high percentage on a network then you will increase the volatility in which you are producing that energy over a period of time. This isn’t to say it can’t be used, but it does mean in order to rely on this source of energy you will need a multitude of systems to makeup for the troughs of this volatility throughout the day. This includes storage capacity, synchronous systems and transmission. Something to consider is VRE penetration that is the percentage of intermittent concentrations of energy production relative to total concentration of energy. As VRE penetration increases the demand scale for supplemental systems primarily capacity and synchronous functionality will increase at an exponential rate, which is one of the primary reasons that it is substantially easier to go from 10%VRE to 60% VRE than it is to go from 70% VRE to 80% VRE. The second concern then is the additional materials needed for solar. Now silicon isn’t too terrible to come by, but there is a laundry list of other materials needed. Things are easier if we stay with the base mono/poly silicon varieties. The base issue as it relates to material demand is going to be the material demand relative to demand scale of supplemental technologies. The greater solar you use (especially once VRE penetrations exceed 34%) the more storage capacity you will need. now there’s a lot of ways to get storage capacity but the most popularized is with batteries, and supply battery materials is quickly becoming a very difficult challenge due to the location and constraints in extracting particularly lithium, nickel and cobalt.

A price on carbon will reallocate investments

@@ZennExile yes, yes... it's always someone else's fault...

@@ZennExile I grow almost all my family food by myself. Coke, Dupont and Monsanto will not have a single cent from me. We drink springwater, so Nestle will not sell to me bottled water. It's not so difficult, You just need some commitment.

Perfect solution if we had a tested design that could be mass produced, fuel to go in it, people to run it, places to put it, and factories that could build it. Sadly we don't have any of those things.

@@gasdive Yeah, living on an Earth without people really sucks. 🤔

@@l01230123 there are "people". What there aren't are 5 million people who are trained and experienced in the care and feeding of large breeder reactors that haven't been designed yet. Nor there the people who can train them.

@@gasdive That's so true! Online lectures aren't even real! Assuming any form of education, technicians or engineers, in the future existing is just objectively unfair because big numbers and they aren't there when there's no market demand for people who don't exist! Innovation at it's best 😉

@@l01230123 well, if you can design the most neutron efficient nuclear reactor in history, and design it such that it can be run by a teenager who has done some self directed online learning, I'd day you've pulled off a neat trick. Like designing a World Championship winning Formula 1 race car that can be safely operated by a learner driver that has never sat in a car before the first race. Not precluded by the laws of physics, but you've made your design process just a little harder.

Right?! I get so frustrated because even in my sustainability classes there’s been a plan for a long time. It does nothing if the right people aren’t implementing it. I guess I’ll believe it when I start seeing some proof otherwise it seems like just setting myself up for more disappointment. I guess when there’s no planet to live on maybe they’ll have enough money? 🧐☹️

Oh no you dont know, well unfortunately we’re actually fucked, all of these things are too costly for our Nations to actually tackle the problem

Hmmm, the capitalist democracy doing on the regard of climate change the most. Firstly, it’s the capitalist democracies stated that there is a problem, omg, how people can be so stupid and got likes

@@redakteur3613 north Americans emit more per capita than any other region of the world.

@@christianjarvis167 and? It seems to me, that North American region is the most developed in the world. Other countries just haven’t reached this heights, as well the USA has cut its emissions the most in comparison with other western world

Batteries are recycled. Burned carbon fuels are not recyclable nor sustainable. Using natural gas or hydrocarbons to generate electricity to charge a battery is far more efficient (20%). The mining of any resource is generally a significant disaster in its own use of hydrocarbon and potentially irreversible pollution. If the resource is recyclable or not makes a huge difference in the grande scheme of things. If one is unable to see the asymmetrical compromise at this level, then the means to comprehend the big picture looking forward is skewed by mediocrity and complacency. The idea that we as individuals are to bear the burden or even possible to make a difference is flawed. Governments, corporations and industries are the main factor if not the only factor that is responsible. We as individuals must collectively engage in directly facing this reality for what it is first or else we collectively as humans create that which enables destruction. The cognitive energy we apply to this topic must be efficient, focused and not wasted on emotional rhetoric. We as humans do best when we develop with a positive and progressive excitement for our achievements and future. We as humans have proven to be resourceful when facing dire situations or bountiful life- which either way we produce tools used for manipulating our environments to work for ourselves. Corporations, bureaucracies and governments are such tools. The phenomena of such tools is they work more for their own interests rather than the interests of life and mankind. It’s more costly to not develop better tools to fix those than any of the above.

I know right? Te reo Māori has "tātou". We, 1 or more others, plus me and the listener. Eg: we are in big trouble. "Rātou" They, 3 or more, but not including me or the listener. Eg, they are making too much noise, could you ask them to be quiet? "Mātou", We, my two or more friends, me, but not you the listener. Eg, we would like a room for the night. "Koutou", you, the listener, your 2 or more friends, but not including me or my friends. Eg, could you and your buddies keep it down, we are trying to sleep.

@@gasdive Fascinating :) I'm gonna quote you! Marathi (my mother tongue) has separate words "Aamhi" (we excluding you the listener) and "AapaN" (we including you the listener). The Te reo Māori version is far more nuanced :)

سيداتي وسادتي.. أنني على يقين من أنه يجب علينا من أجل المضي قدما أن نعبر بصراحة عما هو في قلوبنا وعما هو لا يقال إلا خلف الأبواب المغلقة. كما يجب أن يتم بذل جهود مستديمة للاستماع إلى بعضنا البعض وللتعلم من بعضنا البعض وللاحترام المتبادل والبحث عن أرضية مشتركة، وينص القرآن الكريم على ما يلي "اتقوا الله وقولوا قولا سديدا" وهذا ما سأحاول -بما في وسعي- أن أفعله، وأن أقول الحقيقة بكل تواضع أمام المهمة التي نحن بصددها اعتقادا مني كل الاعتقاد أن المصالح المشتركة بيننا كبشر هي أقوى بكثير من القوى الفاصلة بيننا. بصحة جيدة دائما للجميع !!!. # أشكركم. ### 🌏 ...

سيداتي وسادتي.. أنني على يقين من أنه يجب علينا من أجل المضي قدما أن نعبر بصراحة عما هو في قلوبنا وعما هو لا يقال إلا خلف الأبواب المغلقة. كما يجب أن يتم بذل جهود مستديمة للاستماع إلى بعضنا البعض وللتعلم من بعضنا البعض وللاحترام المتبادل والبحث عن أرضية مشتركة، وينص القرآن الكريم على ما يلي "اتقوا الله وقولوا قولا سديدا" وهذا ما سأحاول -بما في وسعي- أن أفعله، وأن أقول الحقيقة بكل تواضع أمام المهمة التي نحن بصددها اعتقادا مني كل الاعتقاد أن المصالح المشتركة بيننا كبشر هي أقوى بكثير من القوى الفاصلة بيننا. بصحة جيدة دائما للجميع !!!. # أشكركم. ### 🌏 ...

سيداتي وسادتي.. أنني على يقين من أنه يجب علينا من أجل المضي قدما أن نعبر بصراحة عما هو في قلوبنا وعما هو لا يقال إلا خلف الأبواب المغلقة. كما يجب أن يتم بذل جهود مستديمة للاستماع إلى بعضنا البعض وللتعلم من بعضنا البعض وللاحترام المتبادل والبحث عن أرضية مشتركة، وينص القرآن الكريم على ما يلي "اتقوا الله وقولوا قولا سديدا" وهذا ما سأحاول -بما في وسعي- أن أفعله، وأن أقول الحقيقة بكل تواضع أمام المهمة التي نحن بصددها اعتقادا مني كل الاعتقاد أن المصالح المشتركة بيننا كبشر هي أقوى بكثير من القوى الفاصلة بيننا. بصحة جيدة دائما للجميع !!!. # أشكركم. ### 🌏 ...

Black holes don’t generate energy. The best you could do is somehow absorb energy that is ejected from its secretion disk as a consequence of the severe gravitational pull. Why you would purposefully go near a black hole as supposed to look into the higher ends of nuclear fusion is beyond me. The crazy thing is nuclear is considered this almighty form of generation, yet your nuclear reactors in the context of astronomical forms of nuclear reactions is like 1/billion trillion septillionth of 1%. Our star is child’s play compared to the higher limits. Our star does the most basic form of nuclear fusion. Start getting into oxygen fusion and your looking at enough energy to supply more interstellar civilizations than the Universe could even hold

For climate change?

@@chinbrows6245 no for Starbucks, of course climate ffs

Hmm, and what “part” of problem is he? “Hypocrisy” is in your brain, it’s good that clever rich people know what to do

@@redakteur3613 I would've engaged with you on a debate around the structure of capitalism and how that affects the world but your second sentence just shows you are incapable of having rational debates!

@@ElvisAdomnica ok, go North Korea, you just can’t compete with me, that’s why you can’t “debate”, bae

@@redakteur3613 🤣

John Doerr acknowledges in this video that "those who suffer the most have done the least to cause this problem," and "climate change amplifies inequities." It's pointed out by a speaker that he is very affluent. He's committing himself to the cause of "climate justice." Even if he is a hypocrite, the fact that he's willing to do work if far more important than name-calling when the world is dying. Complaining about hypocrisy is about as annoying as hypocrisy in this situation because you're distracting from real solutions. Here's a part of the Wikipedia article for contrast: 'Doerr advocates innovation in clean energy technologies to combat climate change, and has written and testified on the topic. In a 2007 TED conference, he cited his daughter's remark, "your generation created this problem, you better fix it", as a call to fight global warming."' He's also an *extremely* successful salesperson, so he has much better chance to convince the ultra rich than you or I, especially considering he's using rhetoric to appeal to their greed. He's very much against the oil industry as well. Good things I'm sure you'd agree. *IF* I'm going to "eat the rich" or get upset it's going to be at someone who's not just a hypocrite - most of us are hypocrites - I'm getting PO'd with the gaslighting, extremely narcissistic, slave-owning monsters who are more directly responsible for this mess. The dude is quite literally doing more things to combat global warming that the vast majority of individuals, so I'm not ignoring that or downplaying how useful he is to the potentially already doomed cause. 😅 The more money he has the more power he has to develop more green solutions, and staying rich gives him influence and attention and more riches within this unfair system. Yes, billionaires = bad hypocrites, but we can't pretend there's no good way to spend profits or nuances or that he's nearly as bad as Bezos. (Who John funded, and is worth discussing as John has) Unless we dismantle/regulate capitalism we'll have to work within the system, John supports regulations, and it's a difficult messy problem either way. 🤷‍♂️ As a side note, the rhetoric you're using can be considered hypocritical in the sense that you weren't willing to engage with the provoking commenter asking for clarification. I fully support your choice, but you could have attempted a good faith argument for the benefit of random readers. Having an explicitly educational mindset could lead to a silly game of finger pointing hypocrites where everyone is technically correct.

First you have deforestation for cropfields for meatproduction, emissions from producing fertilizer, transportation of food for the animals and methan from animals which has a much higher greenhouse effect. I think thoose have the biggest impacts. Ofcourse stuff like packaging and transportation to the warehouses won't lower if we all become vegetarian because then they would simply package and ship other products.

What do humans exhale... CARBON DIOXIDE.

@@thegroove2000 pf1zer and m0dern@ have already took care of that

And having to go backwards because "renewables" are unreliable and get people killed who need power to survive....just saying....

What is your solution?

If you watch *slightly* further into the video it's very clear they don't believe nuclear will fix everything.

@@trosati the time for palatable solutions is probably past. Exactly what a solution would look like at the detail level isn't something that any one person knows, including me. However there's a few things we can say. First and most important, this is a "come as you are" emergency. There's no time left to design something, wait for a breakthrough or move something from promising lab curiosity into a saleable product. That really goes for social structures as much as material objects. While a new world order that's fair, sustainable, inclusive, stable etc would be great, no one has a design for it, let alone a working prototype at small scale. Second we need to look at the scale. We currently use about 25 TW of energy. Very nearly all comes from fossil fuels, so we need to get it from somewhere else. (figures that give renewables as a certain percentage are almost always only taking about electricity, which is a small subset of energy use) We have to go with what we have and use that to make 25 TW So look in the toolbox and we find... Wind... There's not enough wind to provide 25 TW. You'd basically stop the wind from blowing. Wind is out. Tide... There's not enough tide. Not enough by orders of magnitude. Biomass... There's not enough arable land. Biomass is out even if you convert all the remaining wild spaces into farm land and all the people into farmers. Hydro... Almost all the suitable hydro sites are already in use for hydro. Damming what's left wouldn't get us anywhere near the 25 TW target. There's a couple of countries getting most of their electricity from hydro, but that's nowhere near most of their *energy*. Fusion... Same issues as fission nuclear, but a thousand times worse. Fusion is completely idiotic. Burning garbage for power... The garbage was once a manufactured product and it takes more energy to make the product than you get from burning it. Garbage in, not much out. Hydrogen... It's not a source of energy, its a carrier. A pretty terrible one. Maybe useful as a feedstock for another process, like steelmaking. Geothermal... Again, there's a country or two getting most of their electricity, not energy, but it's just not going to scale. Toolbox is getting pretty empty. Solar... [rummaging noises] errr, that's it. That's all that's left in the box. Is the resource of the right scale? The Earth is roughly a sphere that has an area of 510 million sqkm. The projected area of a sphere is 1/4 of the area. So the Earth intercepts a circle of sunlight 127 million sqkm in area. At the surface sunlight brings about 1000W per sqm. (don't worry about angles to the ground, seasons or night, that's all captured in the conversion from area to projected area) There's a million sqm in a sqkm. So 127 million sqkm is 127 trillion sqm. Times 1000W is 127,000 trillion watts. (127,000 TW) and we need 25 trillion watts. (25 TW) So the resource is of the right scale. Do we have designs for solar collectors that are suitable for mass production? Yes Are they tested? Yes Do we have designs for collector factories? Yes Are they tested? Yes Do we have designs for the factories that make the machines in the collector factories? Yes Are they tested? Yes So that's it really. Solar is the only viable option for the hardware. It needs cables that can distribute the electricity to places that haven't got sun shining. The designs for the cables exist. The cable factories exist and the factories that make the machines that go in the factories exist, so we know how to make more cable factories quickly. There are details for edge cases like aviation and shipping, but they can be solved given enough energy. (inefficient solutions are generally easier) The social structures problem however can't be solved. The people with the power to solve that problem are the same people who are the problem. No path from here to survival exists.

@@l01230123 I watched the rest and wasn't much impressed. They say nuclear to "fill the gaps" which means nuclear peaker plants instead of Intercontinental grid connections. For much of the world, that's the dark winter nights. So the number of nuclear plants needed is really the same as in my comments above. 50,000. The only difference being that for much of the time those plants will be running on bypass, where they do everything they would be doing to make electricity (running the plant, consuming fuel) with the exception that the steam generated mostly bypasses the steam turbines. So you need to build all the solar you would have built for a complete solar solution, plus all the nuclear you would have built for a complete nuclear solution. That fits well with the US isolationist policy, but it's not going to get us all out of this mess, and it can't be applied as a global solution. They go on to say that we need to research to find solutions. That's just ridiculous for obvious reasons.

@@gasdive Your argument relies on the false assumptions that: we can't reduce our power use, we can't research better technologies in years, (it's been done and is happening) and we wouldn't build typically better than average (and well funded) reactors in future times. Hydroelectric, public transport, reduced beef consumption, regulations, etc. apparently just don't matter? "Wasn't impressed" is by no means a reasonable dismissal, these all play a different-sized part. "Fill the gaps" means use in addition to other solutions. There was absolutely no implication of needing peaking power plants, you made that up.