@Jesus Saves whats yout take on the relatively recent news on it's progress then? I read articles on a proven concept and being taken to a small scale generator. Im not super in touch with the specifics of the subject so any info is much appreciated!
Good script with pleasing narrator, treating audience as adults, no propaganda nor hysteria; Positive & uplifting unlike our UK mainstream media outlets, which attempt to keep the population subservient or depressed. Will watch this channel again.
Three gorges dam has major cracks on the ship hoist, which might restrict its use, and it has minor cracks elsewhere, it should be all right for now but after a few decades of wear and tear it might need some major reconstruction. The ecological damage the dam caused during construction and without it sorting the flood problem has mired it in controversy. The biggest problem it has at present is that more dams are being built upstream and taking the water away from the three gorges in the dry season, it has plenty in the wet seasons!?!
One concern I think may be overlooked is that wind turbines have been emanating low harmonic frequencies. As a result there are starting to be reports of cattle behaving erratically and attempting to distance themselves from wind turbines. Also some people have reported higher rates of headaches when living near turbines. My thoughts are that it is known that sound travels farther and more intensely through water than air, So could it have a similar effect on marine life? if so it could cause massive ecological damage in the long run.
One amount several inaccuracy in the piece: In 2021, geothermal energy in our state produced 11,116 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity. Combined with another ,700 GWh of imported geothermal power, geothermal energy produced 5.72 percent of California's in-state generation portfolio. NOT 20%
I'm sorry, but to the speaker person, you sound like you have a sore throat In this video, it's not the usual smooth voice. I hope you are feeling better soon
I was just watching this video to see the futuristic device shown on the video thumbnail. Why would you show that if it's not in the video? Or did I miss it?
The largest energy project in the world is the Penzhinskaya tidal power plant. It is assumed that after completion it will produce more than 100 GW of electricity. The project implementation period is 2020-2035. The cost is estimated at $ 500 billion. Compared to this, all wind farms and solar panels are expensive toys for charging batteries.
Dubai's Sahara desert could be the biggest place for solar farms and therefore, creating such "solar power stations" could be the cleverest investment, for shaikhs!
Solar seems to take up too much flat land, I suppose it is very dry and not suitable for farming without irrigation, and I suppose that certain creatures could live around the panels as it offers some shade, but for the land it takes up and the power it outputs it seems woefully inefficient!?!
@@thomasherrin6798 Most of the land on Earth is hostile to life with a poor biodiversity, uninhabited, and barren desert. Especially in the US. They can also be fitted on rooftops. Also, even if we put all solar panels exclusively on farmlands, it still wouldn't take up THAT much land to have any significant impact. In fact, if we replaced the 2.2 million acres of golf surfaces with solar panels (and had the means to store the excess energy of course), it would generate enough electricity for more than 20% of the US population. In comparison, the US has approx 900 million acres of farmlands. So even if we put all solar panels exclusively on farmlands and NOTHING on rooftops or deserts, and wanted a 100% pure solar energy and NOTHING else (no nuclear, no hydro, no wind), this still wouldn't even take 1% of the total farmlands to power the homes of one of the most energy hungry countries in the world! Oh boy, we will have to eat 1% less food to reach such an unrealistic scenario! What a disaster, we're all gonna starve!
What about fission nuclear plants. Like Diablo Nuclear Power Plant produces as much power as 170 square miles of solar panels with 1/10 the resource usage.
Most of the thermal powerplants in CA have a open cycle, instead of closed cycle. CO2 can be washed out of the rock in the depth and will be released at the surface. Such a plant can come up to emissions like a coal fired powerplant.
Okay so I looked into this you're right and you're wrong at the same time it does produce a small amount of CO2 but it's less damaging than natural gas so by that metric it's way less damaging than coal. 🤧 But you're right I wish they use closed cycle geothermal that being said I don't know those were around when California were making these. But definitely something to keep in mind for next geothermal plans
@@woodelfdragon8603 Okay if 5hat ist the case, it would be better. I read in an article, that the emissions can vary a lot depending on the location and can go up to 1g/kWh, which is comparable to a coal powerplant. But hopfully/maby the article was wrong. The geology in CA is very busy and I think such numbers can be realistic but on average the emissions must be under gas powerplants. An open cycle is cheaper than a closed one. Here in Germany a closed cycle is obligatory and I was shocked as well when I found that out, that a geothermal powerplant can do this. In the Upper-Rhine-Trench, in this region we have europes biggest Lithium reserve. But You can only find it in depths to deep for mining. So we have to wash it out with the water we use for geothermal plants. An extraction facility will be added to existing and new plants in order to get zero carbon and environmental friendly Lithium. Lithium-independance here we come :)
@@woodelfdragon8603 i looked into it as well and i'm finding 2 distinct groups of sources One that says what you said and one that says what error says Most of the sources have unclear funding but among those that i can identify, cali state (or similar) funded the sources saying it's better than gas while environmental groups and eco-activists funded the others
That would be fair if we showed all of the mountain topping from coal excavation, oil leaks from wells in our oceans, spills from oil barges, oil spills from oil sand pits, and bubbling methane from intercontinental pipelines. I'm not saying that the current extractive nature of our technology development shouldn't be addressed; but, the way we are harvesting energy is not sustainable for the future of our species or any others we hope to coexist with on this pale blue dot.
@@joshmaddox7232 couldn't agree more. I'm personally a big fan of molten salt thorium reactor tech. Seems very promising. Still some kinks to work out, but could be vital to supplement wind/solar.
Excellent video, I always exit when a midrollad appears though, which was at about the 1/2 way mark. So many great energy sources, I hope they didn't talk up Nuclear later in the video, that is the most insane source of power to ever be introduced to the world.
Why are we pushing solar when your not talking about the issues with solar. Solar only produces energy a portion of the day. The rest of the day requires batteries to get back to where it starts producing enough energy to then recharge the batteries and get back to providing the energy. The other issue with solar is the materials needed to make the panels use a lot of rare earth materials meaning that the more people that use solar the higher the cost to buy the panels as your dealing with a limited resource again just like oil with the panels needing to be replaced after a period of years. We should halt the power creation that relies on batteries until we get batteries that don't need rare earth metals as well too since they currently wear out way too quickly. Nuclear is the best clean energy source but because it can cause huge issues if you don't manage it well we have a tendency to not want to push it.
Nuclear plants are a very good solution but we already can't extract enough uranium to meet the global demand. Unless we find a way to extract it from seawater at scale and in a cost-effective way, this is doomed as well in the long run.
Solar & batteries will be short lived. Has anyone considered the environmental cost for disposing of panels and batteries at end of life? Do we throw them into landfill or can they be recycled?
I believe one country is recycling lithium batteries but generally they are considered too dangerous to recycle. Aluminium from solar panels frames can be recycled that's about it and copper cabling it all depends on the cost of aluminium to determine if solar panel recycling is viable
So many large scale solar farms. I believe that it should be law that all new houses should have solar installed during the building of the house. I’m in aUstralia so it’s good everywhere here and that at some places it’s no so good. So in the feasible areas just make it law when building a house or when buying an old house without solar you might get 5 years to install solar and can’t sell without solar installed.
They somewhat did try do it in australia and then the government was paying too much subsidy money so quickly shut it down... Issue is that locally installed grid connect is somewhat useless in the grand scheme of things, solar at home while your in the airconditioned office at work...
Solar isn't a good solution since your pushing using rare earth metals and collection of those materials is extremely bad for the environment. Solar also requires batteries and the nickel/lithium are the worst things that can get into a water table. There is a reason that mining for that is mainly done in areas where people don't live.
@@matthewrose8002 ok easiest first. Solar doesn’t require batteries at all. I spoke of Australia. In AUstralia about half of our electricity goes to heat water for a start. So solar is a brilliant way to do this because hot water doesn’t car when it’s heated. In Australia we almost exclusively use large water tanks and not on demand heating. Then when your laundry and dishwasher runs you can do that in the day. So yes you can use batteries but you don’t have to at all and it’s not required to make solar cost efficient. Not even close. However a battery like a single Tesla powerwalls 12 kWh would make average Australian home grid usage almost nonexistent. But not REQUIRED. Rare earth metals. Well so what I have to say. It’s a true case of pick your poison. Fossil fuels are the current poison of choice and it’s not working out well. So choosing rare earth metals to dope the silicon in tiny tiny tiny amounts seems like a good trade off. With solar panels extremely long operational life span, for electrical products, the rare earth mining is spread over a very long time. Also (like the batteries above )that 25 years for solar panels is an arbitrary life span and now several manufacturers are offering panels with 30 years guarantee. Now that doesn’t mean panels stop working or produce no electricity at that 25 or 30 years but that they have degraded to a pre defined level LG neon2 are 30 year panels that after 30 years will still be generating 85% of their specified value. So far from broken however the 25 year panels are normally seem to be around 70-75% of specified value at 25 years. Still far far far from broken and useless. In aUstralia an appropriately sized solar array will pay itself off in 5 years but that would be far less now since our power price increases since the Ukraine war. So your argument that mining the smallest by far component of solar panels being bad as a reason to not use solar is a sham. Something that a fossil fuel company mouthpiece would say. I however as part of my chemical engineering degree at university of Queensland went to a coal mine and that was appalling. Also if you look at websites that compare different electricity generation methods you will find that solar has a break even using equivalent CO2 as the measure normally of 6 months or less depending on the panel size, bigger panels work off their CO2 equivalent debt faster. So a 6 month CO2 equivilient debt ( I researched that 15 years ago when installing my solar on my first house. Darwin also uses parity pricing on solar so a home battery is mute) so the 24.5 years of free as per CO2 debt is a very good trade off for rare earth mining. Yes transformers I for solar last around 10 years so need to be replaced. So your argument is flawed as you seem to overestimate the problems of rare earth mining and under state the pay off and just arbitrarily demand that batteries must be used in house installations. The facts don’t agree with you.
@@danielleriley2796 The entire part of your defense of solar is saying a niche thing and putting the onus on the user of when they can do things. That isn't how the world works. Also, heating water is hard to do that in cold climates. Your climate where you get consistent sunlight daily this works. The colder the climates the water will freeze too quickly or cost way to much to use. Also, in places like Alaska there are times that 6 weeks of the year they get zero sunlight. Your amounts on how much an average house uses in terms of electricity is way off. It is 150 kWh is closer to what a home uses per day. Warmer climates also are easier to supply energy as they use less energy. Lithium and nickel are the two metals most associated with batteries. China is a large producer of both and has a mine that flooded 3 times. Each time the mine flooded and had the materials get into the local river that runs for about a thousand miles that river was unable to be used for over 3 months as non drinkable. Not just that bad but the river and everything that drank out of it died so fast that there are pictures that usually get censored by media because it's China this happens at of the entire river having bodies floating down it. This would include fish, horses, pigs, cows, etc.. about as far as you can see covering the river. That is what some of the rare metals can do to the water table. The US has an abandoned nickel mine that was flooded afterwards and the entire area is death to anything that lands on it. It has a lake on top and that lake has people that patrol it shooting guns to stop birds from landing on it as they will dissolve in the lake if they stay too long. That is why those rare metals are MUCH worse that the CO2 will ever be. California has major issues as it moves to solar since they have three demand curves. One that happens in the middle of the day, one after everyone gets home and one in the middle of the night. Solar only covers the demand for 6 hours a day and the rest of the day they can't put up enough panels to cover so they use one of two methods to cover the demand. That would be some fossil fuel or batteries.
Instead of collecting neutral amf of the sun separate the ions strands of negative and positive energy. Like a video card that separates the colors, enhancing then significantly efficient and effective gathering of the Ray's of the sun. And most importantly the gamma rays of the night allowing the image of the moon, even, When you cannot see the moon, the xray of the earth, which as the tides reveal orbits the earth and changes the tidal table every 90 minutes or so. 33, 45, 67. A constant of 1, or 285714, nautical spiral.
All these panels will need to be replaced at the same time. (20 years?) @13:25 "One set of blades can supply one house for 2 Days!" Something wrong here!
water flows better then molten salt. that steam engine farm with the mirrors. water is better maintance friendly. that circle with that big tower in the middle with that boilong vatt. #adhog
If im not mistaken which I could be, Some of these things they build to not be reliant on fossil fuels, They need fossil fuels for the materials they build them with.
For the last ten years or more the world has generated more power by wind turbine than is consumed building new wind turbines. I suspect we are very near the point where installed solar capacity exceeds the energy consumed by building new solar. The installations will continue delivering clean energy after the new installations slow down.
This is how the energy transition works, obsolete ATOMIC and COAL power plants will have a use for the next decades. Even if they no longer produce coal or nuclear power, but only store huge amounts of renewable energy. I have made suggestions before, but no one seems to be interested. The best suggestion would be to convert nuclear and coal-fired power plants into renewable energy storage facilities. There are already the steam turbines well integrated into the grid and in addition a fat very large cascaded heat, heat storage so up to 1500 ° and huge capacity storage could be 1. directly filled with solar, but also 2. with renewable photovoltaic power and wind power power etc.... surplus power be heated up. Heat loss is tiny and minimal with today's insulation and systems technology. Sand batteries or whatever material, cheap with high density, refractory concrete up to 1600° it only needs cheap and high melting temperature, simplest cheap technology that can IMMEDIATELY be used and connected to the grid on a huge scale. Works absolutely unproblematically for many decades. And solves the storage problem on a huge scale and finally provides renewables with the important base load capability.
Flooding on the Yangtzee has not been controlled nearly as much as was hoped with the 3 gorges dam. From a flood control perspective that project is a complete failure as proved by the recent flooding events downstream.
Floods are much rarer than before the dam and the floods caused by the unusually heavy rainfall would be much worse if the dam did not held back 11 trillions cubic meters of water during the record breaking heavy rainfall. The lives saved cannot be measured but China has not experienced the heavy flood losses since it was built, that were common throughout the ages.
@@alexjohnward Not really, brackets, wiring, charge controller then its up to you if you go for grid tie in or batteries. No need for all that infrastructure to get the power from the arsehole of nowhere to a residential area.
Здравствуйте, спасибо. Отлично. На новом пути буду ошибки ("человеку свойственно ошибаться"). Всякий интеллект искусственной, новые технологии в глобальном пространстве требуют новых знаний и опыта точных, осознанных действий (происходит создание нового сознания и новых людей). Извините
The windfarm in the California mountains, known as Tehachapi.... the correct pronunciation of Tehachapi is "Tuh-HAT-cha-pee". Otherwise, very informative!
Most of the wind turbines aren't in Tehachapi but in nearby Mojave. Tehachapi residents wouldn't allow those things in their picturesque town, know that. They sure as hell covered the hillsides outside of town though
though windturbines seems envirementally great, that isnt compleatly correct, besides the constuctionpart it self is far less good than one might think, second and actually far more important reason is its totally devastating for insects and birds
Interesting exposé, but it's almost completely ruined by the horrible, irrelevant music. I also seemed to find some confusion regarding poweer and energy figures.
India with 340 sunny days has many vacant land to set up solar panels. Only try to make panels in India to cut ✂️ costs. Maintenance should be regular.
oil is toast. I hope that russia, the saudis and opec as a whole has a long term investment portfolio that does not include continuing to kill off advanced technology that would replace oil.
Lol sorry fossil fuel will still be used for a very long time rocket fuel aircraft fuel diesel for trucks trains shipping and let's not forget about all the plastic we love and polyester clothing
Where abouts in this video is there any mention of the project that is shown in the thumbnail ??? Are the videos of content makers that rubbish that they have to lure people in with thumbnails that have no relevance what so ever to the actual video.
Now make a video about the mountains of obsolete/broken/worn out turbine blades that can not be recycled, show us the sea of blood from dead insects and birds, the plastic and carcinogenic dust/vapor put in too the air from the chemicals used to make them. There is a reason for it to be called renewable, because green it is not.
All those 'black' solar panel surfaces in those deserts, are they not even helping climate change by retaining more heat, instead of yellowish more reflective sand?
It's a war crime to destroy an energy plant unless it's directly and solely used for providing energy for military operations. It's also a war crime to cause damage the environment in a manner that cause long term, significant or irreversible damage. So that might be a deterrent
"california is leading the way" Yeah thats why they keep having all those brown outs, black outs, and tell people not to run their ac and charge their cars. Plant votgle is about 5 square miles of land, with a capacity of 2300 mega watts, and this is the important one, it annually produces 1900 gigawatts. Note this is before the 2 new reactors come on line. Every place that has switched to mostly solar/wind have power issues. They are having to build batteries for solar/wind because wind especially is screwing up the power grid with wind being so intermittent. With the price of wind/energy plus battaries it is far more expensive than building nuclear. And lets be honest hundreds of square miles of trashy "clean energy" is less clean than a few square miles of nuclear power generation.
