Nuclear power is the way forward.

@aguBert90

7 жыл бұрын

I don't want to set the world on fire

@iNexTTx

7 жыл бұрын

blackmesa232323 I would like to go as far away from the history of fallout (Gams Series)

@trance715

7 жыл бұрын

blackmesa232323 agreed. it's sad how many uninformed people still think that they are more dangerous than coal plants, and how many more think that they can explode lol. (they can't)

@dennispremoli7950

7 жыл бұрын

what????

@tacticalultimatum

7 жыл бұрын

blackmesa232323 Huzzar, nuclear for the win

Because rich people would stop getting money

@MadameRaven1

7 жыл бұрын

this.

@intensitydigital

7 жыл бұрын

You think the power people only get money from power (most millionaires and billionaires have very diversified incomes)? And they would immediately switch over to green energy if it meant they could make more money or keep making money from power.

@101spacecase

7 жыл бұрын

Oh yeah I would say that will happen..When the Oil starts to run dry only..Until then they will just protect there current setup. By the same old means of buying out inventions an ideas that undermine there agenda. Which is to milk the Oil an fossil fuel system as long as it remains feasible. Then perhaps things will start to change a bit more towards better battery an electrical management tech. One can only hope.

@Prometheukles

7 жыл бұрын

Ah yes, because we would not make even more money by guilt tripping you into paying double for solar =) The Bank always wins =D

@OldieBugger

7 жыл бұрын

Oh yes, rich people are making good money in Europe (dunno about America), from windmills that are heavily subsidized by the government. And new windmills are being built everywhere, even in places that are quite inappropriate for them. And the windmills would make heavy losses every month if they weren't subsidized. But now they are making more money for the already rich people, courtesy of the taxpayers.

I wish most of the research and development would go into nuclear power. It seems to be the most clean, safe & reliable source of energy for the next centuries.

@ljiljanakrsticfilipovic8231

7 жыл бұрын

Mikko Haavisto I agree. Absolutely!

@oguve278

7 жыл бұрын

Mikko Haavisto but Very High Risk to do

@Yamikaiba123

7 жыл бұрын

I hear that nuclear is only risky because most countries cut costs by neglecting safety standards and not investing in the latest, safest technology. New models for reactors cost more upfront.

@chrisv4496

7 жыл бұрын

Nuclear is only high-risk with our current light-water reactors. An LFTR design is literally fool-proof-safe.

@jasonbone5121

7 жыл бұрын

In 14.5 secs the sun generates enough energy to power the world for the rest of the day (not claiming we can capture it all). It is the fuel and it delivers itself at no cost. A PV module (hell, an entire solar farm for that matter) produces power with no moving parts, no emissions and no sound. They are made from the second most plentiful element on earth, silicon.

There's all sorts of other issues not covered as well. Grid connectivity issues, peak demand issues, plant footprints, lack of power storage options, transmission distances.... Renewables are a LONG way out from replacing fossil fuels. It's a lot more complicated than "rich people will make less money." There is a hell of a lot more steps between generation and the light switch at home people take for granted.

@Ardkun00

5 жыл бұрын

"capacity factor" the main problem of renewables.

@davidlp3019

5 жыл бұрын

exactly.

@thetayterminator1436

4 жыл бұрын

Renewables + Nuclear + Hydro (Hydroelectricity & Hydroelectric Batteries). not exactly sure what they call it, its not an actual battery per se but they're using hydroelectric dams like batteries. Whenever renewables that are feeding the grid are producing more than demand, they use the extra energy to pump water from the bottom of the dam back up to the top, so whenever they need it they can let that same amount of water flow and turn turbines to get the energy back. Idk how long they've been doing this for, I would suspect that they're not getting the same amount of energy back that they "Stored". If they were then it would be worth it to build ponds and rivers just to build these dam batteries! (I had too lol) Ive always said in the future, once our ancestors have populated this whole Country including the deserts… .so once Las Vegas spreads out all the way across the whole Great Basin lol and Ratifies to become its very own State with its Capital Building obviously going to be the "Circus Circus" because logically where else would the Politicians go? Lol… .anyways, once that happens and the Great Basin, Mojave & Sonoran Deserts are all full of houses & people and towns ands Thunderdomes, Ok seriously, I think we should build hydroelectric dams all the way down the throughout the Grand Canyon. So there would be a dam every 10-15 miles throughout the Grand Canyon, that would be somewhere around 25 Hydroelectric dams in total throughout the entire Grand Canyon, each damn would be a number of feet shorter than the one before it that way once the water has reached the bottom it can be pumped all the way back to the top to make the journey again, they have some dams where the turbines themselves can function just like a pump to move water backwards, if they did it this way then each damn could function as a "Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Dam" but I still think that it would increase the efficiency to have one of the dams provide the power to pump water all the way back up because then that same water would turn turbines at something like 20 more dams. Right now, the numbers for efficiency of the energy stored by "Pumped Storage Hydroelectric dams" is around 60%-70% for older dams and 70%-80% for newer dams. Some even claiming numbers like 87% efficiency, which is pretty good and definitely contributes to a big problem facing energy methods like "Solar" & "wind" , because whenever theres lower demand on the grid but the sun is Gleaming☀lol or the wind is Blowing 💨, a system like ive described, what I like to call a "Hydroelectric Ladder System" could very well be the answer. Especially in a place like the Deserts out west where both "Solar" & "Wind" are well suited for that environment. Now, obviously, converting the Wonderful Grand Canyon into a 277 mile system of energy plants is not something any society is going to want to do if there are still options on the table. Thats why I made the reference to the Thunderdome lol, that particular idea is only for an earth that is running out of room and options and has not figured out Nuclear Fusion yet. I would love to hear some comments, criticism, opinions on it.

@MrWeanerdog

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed, i work on electric cars and the average person has no clue the depth that is the "all electric future"

@marksobkiv3459

4 жыл бұрын

@@thetayterminator1436 it takes more energy to pump it back up than it actualy gives in electricity. If you wanted it to be at least as good you would have to make the sistem 100% efficient which is impossible. Only way im seeing this work is by placing a nuclear plant by a river and feeding the water vapor that comes from the plant back into the river. But that water would have to be stored intil it was cool enought. Also it would come with no minerals so it would change the Ph off water and be extremly bad for the ecosistem

Nuclear is the future! Thorium Salt and Fusion reactors will be almost waste free :D

@EastwardTraveller

7 жыл бұрын

If these technologies are on the horizon that means we should have already started decommissioning all the current fission plants. We might not even be able to decommission some in time for rising sea levels let alone if something sudden and cataclysmic were to occur.

@ljiljanakrsticfilipovic8231

7 жыл бұрын

We'll still need fision reactors for other things like isotopes for nuclear medicine

@MadFluffysterXaines

7 жыл бұрын

+Kurt Coleman Rising sea levels impact entire cities, water rising wont cause any issue for a nuclear plant... The waste is the only thing that can cause issues with water, and even then there are major rules about how to and where to store it until recycling it.

@brian2440

7 жыл бұрын

But they cost a lot more. I don't think anyone is going to have their own personal ITER anytime soon...

@streak1burntrubber

7 жыл бұрын

Ljiljana Krstic Filipovic I guess, but that doesn't mean we need to keep the ones we have. The nuclear medicine can be made in small plants made specifically for it, and energy can be made in the rest of the plants.

FUSION POWER. LETS GET IT DONE!

@CUBETechie

4 жыл бұрын

You will fist build a nuclear powerplant to generate electricity to power the magnetic field to hold the plasma

@gilian2587

3 жыл бұрын

@aidenr42 Still 40 years away...

@LP-ju2fi

3 жыл бұрын

Nah. Thorium LFTR molton salt reactors. That's where it's at.

Because we're stupid.

@irok1

7 жыл бұрын

Lol I said that as well

@AQCE245

7 жыл бұрын

Madison Meyer No because oil=💶💶💰💰💰

@husamfahad7690

7 жыл бұрын

Madison Meyer Who are you calling we simpleton? It's not the general public that buys out the alternative energy companies just to liquidate them.

@panzerfaust5046

7 жыл бұрын

Oh yeah green energy makes us all feel good. Until the lights go out and the GDP plummets.

@TinchoX

7 жыл бұрын

Mostly, yes.

The materials used in the manufacture of solar panels use so much energy to make that the energy will never be recovered from their use. Aluminum takes immense amounts of electricity to refine. Glass also. And rare earths are "rare."

Not with Trump under command.. We're Fucked

@theriddleman

7 жыл бұрын

james Fra no

@Fr00stee

7 жыл бұрын

wait 4 years

@gregorblueher

7 жыл бұрын

Maybe not. Surprisingly Elon Musk is going to be one of his advisors. So hopefully he gives some good input to this topic.

@johnnyiles7455

7 жыл бұрын

He doesn't believe in climate change so... yes.

@RoboticNerd

7 жыл бұрын

james Fra I finally found one XD. You're an idiot.

It's too expensive. The solar panels and wind turbines themselves aren't so expensive but if you want too have only green energy, you have to have sufficient energy storage or backup. And that's the expensive part. Also you need voltage control, so more on load tap changer transformers or similar devices are needed. You need to bring the electricity from places where it's windy to load centers, so you need more power lines etc.

@vincentrobinette1507

5 жыл бұрын

You hit the nail in the head. 2 things that need improvement. Cost effective and efficient energy storage, and a better, more efficient recycling program to defray the cost and environmental impact of decommissioning aged assets.

You forgot one major thing. Fossil fuels are EXTREMELY more efficient than renewables. In a cubic meter of petrol there is SO much energy. And a field of wind turbines covering the area of a nuclear or coal plant only produces a mere fraction of the energy. Im from italy, and here the governement blindly chose to add renewables just to apease protestors. But, they eneded up sticking them in the middle of the territory runing every view with gigantic metal poles. Some countries simply arent conformed for renewables and their massive space hunger.

Who said I would accept 199 of my bill to rise?????

@markleyg

6 жыл бұрын

The people who care about their health, tgeir children's health and the planet.

@alexshi8583

6 жыл бұрын

markleyg you mean the one percenters?

@Jemalacane0

5 жыл бұрын

The antinuclear and antifossil idea was created to lower people's living standard, bring about poverty, deindustrialize, and regress technologically.

@ciaranmcelvaney4517

5 жыл бұрын

Politicians don’t care what we think or what we want. They’ll just railroad these changes in so they can appear to be saving the planet while flying on private jets and big SUVs and telling us that we need to completely change the way we live our lives while doing absolutely nothing to change their own.

@vincentrobinette1507

5 жыл бұрын

Making a new system work is the easy part of technology. The real breakthrough is when it can be made cost effective. The whole idea is to make energy cheaper. A turbine by itself can produce electricity less expensively than coal on its own, but you have to add the cost of energy storage to make it a continuous, reliable source of power. That really throws a wrench in the cost per kWh of electricity. That needs to be overcome if 100% renewable energy is to be more economical.

Green energy fact: if we put all green energy subsidies together in one-dollar bills and burn them, we could generate more electricity than has been produced by subsidized green energy

@Jayismynickname

3 жыл бұрын

🤨

@andoapata2216

3 жыл бұрын

@@Jayismynickname most equal ,comrade !

I'm not sure why but I couldn't help tuning out in this video...

@skully_the_bandit6055

3 жыл бұрын

wdym

Look at Germany for example. Since they started to implement solar and wind, actual energy share on the electricity bill is only around 20 %, the rest are taxes, renewables surcharges and grid fees and the only reason why their power system didn't fall apart a few times is because they are interconnected to the rest of continental Europe.

because people die if you dont have a proper replacement.... think heating systems, you think carbon tax is a good thing? Consider the financial disadvantage that would create in cold climate areas.

It's still way too expensive, at least the capital costs.

@therealnoodles7638

5 жыл бұрын

Mark SW let the government do the heavy lifting. We're running out of time, the "free market" doesn't see it profitable yet so they're waiting for it to become a viable investment option. It could take decades! But if the government undertook many green projects, it would be faster.

@FrainBart_main

5 жыл бұрын

The energy storage, backup for renewable energy and network modifications necesarry (protencion relays, on load tap changers...) is the expensive part.

@netaji1993

5 жыл бұрын

Your question lies in the green energy. Green energy is the need of the hour. To save on electric bills, you can visit the link*za. gl/5A7naLv*

Fuuuuuuuussion. Hah.

@John77Doe

7 жыл бұрын

ACAY Fusion has been just around the corner since I was a boy. 😃😆😄😅😂

@jamesfra1311

7 жыл бұрын

ACAY THE FUSION DRRIVVVEEE

@gangstashanksta

7 жыл бұрын

I am Nither Goku nor Vegeta!

@dingovory

7 жыл бұрын

It's a double entendre. ACAY is referencing both the dance and the energy source.

@mcdouble.withcheese.9229

7 жыл бұрын

yall some dumbass nerds

Awesome video!! i'd suggest putting the numbers big on the screen so the audience can get the point on the enormous differences between those industries. It's like im hearing the numbers but not the importance of them.

There are many factors, but the determining factor is that people really don't care.

@vincentrobinette1507

5 жыл бұрын

Sad, but true. Follow the money. Renewables will really make inroads, when oil, coal and natural gas become more expensive, and renewable energy becomes less. We're just about there, but the grid scale energy storage necessary to solve the problems caused by intermittency leaves the advantage to conventional sources for now. Give it 5, maybe 10 years, let's see what happens then. Roof top solar and batteries at home are just about there, considering they're competing with the RETAIL cost of electricity. The WHOLESALE cost of electricity is less than half retail, and is much more difficult to compete with.

Advanced nuclear is the future - thorium MSR (molten salt reactor) - see Kirk Sorensen’s TED talks

What about animal agriculture? That is accountable for 51% of all GHG emissions more than fossil fuels and the transportation sector combined. - sources 'Cowspiracy'

@JanjayTrollface

7 жыл бұрын

While animal agriculture is a massive contributor, the 51% number is fairly contentious imo due to the factors attributed to it. I would also recommend everyone to watch 'Cowspiracy'. While I don't believe eating meat (and beef in particular) is the issue,the manner of production most use, and the scale of the situation is clearly unsustainable.

@ShaunMeechan

7 жыл бұрын

JanjayTrollface I agree I'm open minded to other information too, the UN released an article as well about roughly the same amount percentage wise which is still quite shocking. I agree too the demand for animal products is far too high and unsustainable ☝️️

@daviddawson9721

7 жыл бұрын

MeechanTheVegan V On a related note you should look into cultured meat and vertical farming. Both promising technologies over the next 10 years

@SomeTwan

7 жыл бұрын

+JanjayTrollface Methane and nitrous oxide are greenhouse gases. According to UN survey only cow farts (methane) account to more pollution than transport. I think the 51% figure is after pigs, deforestation and other factors. (From another UN survey)

@JanjayTrollface

7 жыл бұрын

Yea,that's right Tom.The 51% number includes alot of other factors,some more relevant than others to animal agriculture.And as you say, the bare bones figure of animal agriculture without these factors is still larger than transport.Personally I think the real issue is over population,sure the earth could sustain far more humans than there currently are,but at what cost to every other living thing on the planet?

Because non-renewable energy such as oil, coal, chemical compounds etc. plays a huge role in a countries economy thus manipulating the media, market and government to their advantage literally slowing down the production of things that can create renewable energy.

I work for the largest clean coal power plant in Pennsylvania and we employ hundreds of workers from different contractors and support hundreds upon hundreds of truck drivers,coal miners,coal yard and tug boat employees, office workers and U.S factory employees that make our equipment . I'm all for solar and wind turbines and Hopefully we can come to a happy medium because stopping all coal fire and nuclear power plants would cause 10s of thousands of people to loose their jobs

Solar is already subsidized through taxes in my country. I'm subsidizing my neighbors who have solar on their roofs. That stinks.

We need to implement more Nuclear power, just wish it didnt cost as much as it does, the only reason we arent using it. Safe as hell, clean as hell, and power supplying as hell. (research Nuclear power before you mention being scared of it or Japan...)

@FrainBart_main

5 жыл бұрын

I agree, but you also need power plants that can regulate their output power fast (like hydro and gas power plants), because today's nuclear can't do that.

@amrokhalid3632

5 жыл бұрын

Clean as hell what does that mean, guess what comes out nuclear power, radioactive materials that are then used to build nuclear bombs so how are they clean

@ttuliorancao

5 жыл бұрын

@@amrokhalid3632 nuclear is the only source of energy which the pollution is contained and isn't thrown in the atmosphere. And, because of that, it's the cleanest energy source ever developed. The nuclear waste is so small and most people's don't realise it. It's necessary 40 grams of nuclear material per year per person. That means less than 3.5 kg per personal if we consider the life expectancy to be around 80 years. For comparison, the oil equivalent per capita in the US is around 6,800 kg of oil per year. It's simple to notice which pollutes more

This is one of the reasons I love living in the Buffalo, NY area. We get our power from Niagara Falls. The water heading for The Falls turns giant turbines before it goes over, and we get enough power to share beyond the Buffalo/Niagara region.

we are not using green energy because most of our equipments (tvs, lighbulbs, microwave) are set to work with white light. we would have to adapt everything to work with green energy. ^^

isn't cattle farming actually worse than burning fossil fuels for the environment?

@JanjayTrollface

7 жыл бұрын

Short answer: pretty much,long answer:it's complicated.

@danzwku

7 жыл бұрын

JanjayTrollface I'd like the long answer please :D

@JanjayTrollface

7 жыл бұрын

So would I,so would I....

@longforgotten4823

7 жыл бұрын

Dan K The meat industry is worse for the environment. Why, because of all the methane cows produce.

@danzwku

7 жыл бұрын

that much is i knew.

You have to say the oath to the lantern first

@Master_Therion

7 жыл бұрын

LOL The Green Lantern _could_ provide us with unlimited green energy, true.

@two-face1041

7 жыл бұрын

Minty have to upvote the DC joke

@solarwindandwater9988

7 жыл бұрын

ryanreynolds :/

We represent over 20,000 wind turbine professionals in the industry and from all of us to you that you for making this video. In some cases we find ourselves defending our occupation and trying to explain the overall impact. I have shared this on our channels. I would love to discuss this with you on our podcast some time. Great work.

EXACTLY what I'm looking for, for my school project XD. Thanks DNews!

I wonder if this guy knows how many birds that contraption on his t-shirt kills every year?

My dad doesn't think climate change is real. Can you make an easy to digest video explaining why it _is_ real?

@rainick

7 жыл бұрын

Energy In (sun) Energy Out (Infrared radiation from heat) Green house gases reduce the amount of energy that gets out. Less energy out means more energy has to stay (in the form of heat). Which means nothing can happen but the Earth warming up. There is no other logical conclusion.

@geraldtheslayer4521

7 жыл бұрын

rainick Too bad his father said "Fake news!" like every other Trumpie

Because renewables being cheap doesn’t mean that replacing existing power plants that are already built is cheap. When building new facilities then renewables is highly competitive now.

>2017 >Implying that "renewables" is at all feasable >Not investing in LFTR reactors

Easy answer. The Greedy people that own coal companies don't want to lose their revenue so they won't let it happen.

@machinezyt595

6 жыл бұрын

Nuclear and hydro will cost them more money. Stop acting like those idiots denying facts to get solar when you can blow it out of the water with these sources.

Nuclear is the way

@eworldly

7 жыл бұрын

Eepu you do realize that nuclear power uses uranium, which has to be mined in large facilities which uses large amounts of fossil fuels. also the residual by product has to be disposed of not to mention they use water to cool down the reactor which get contaminated and also takes money to filter out. nuclear energy is NOT a renewable source cause the uranium will run out too and then what.

@kokofan50

7 жыл бұрын

Emily, you do understand that renewables also require mining? Also, you do understand that the water used to cool the reactors isn't released in to the environment, right? Additionally, generation 4 reactors don't use water to cool the reactor. Furthermore, you do understand that the sun will burnout some day? The important part is if an energy source is going to run out but when, and with more advanced gen 4 reactors we have thousands of years worth of fuel.

@PenneyThoughts

7 жыл бұрын

lmao, the sun burning out? I say we focus on next 10,000 years, not 100 million. But yes, the molten salt (gen 4) reactors look very promising.

@MrCordycep

7 жыл бұрын

Mining uranium does not require large facilities. Because of the incredible power density of uranium and thorium, you only need to mine a tiny amount compared to coal, oil, gas and the materials needed to build solar cells, wind turbines etc. The amount of waste virtually nothing, the volume equivalent to an 8oz can of drink over your life time, and that is if we don't employ reprocessing to reduce the amount of waste (most of the waste is actually unburnt fuel).

@ljiljanakrsticfilipovic8231

7 жыл бұрын

Gen 4 reactors are good

Self sufficiency is the way to eliminate oil and coal. It will require the combination of renewable energy, plus a means to store it so you can defer the consumption. It also requires an energy management system (EMS) for all of the appliances that consume the energy. Currently none of the appliances we use are smart enough to allow an EMS to defer the consumption so we end up consuming energy the most when the input level is the least. Combine batteries for storage and EMS to defer the consumption at optimal times and you have a considerably more efficient and self sufficient system that can potentially eliminate utility services. Obviously we will need to replace combustion engines with electric propulsion to incorporate a vehicle as an appliance that can consume renewable energy produced by a single family home. But solar and wind alone is not the key. It is battery technology and EMS technology. A great example is the washer, dryer, and dishwasher. If we can allow an EMS to decide when to run it. Unfortunately it will also require people to think differently about how we use an appliance. We will need to be disciplined at how we consume energy. Instead of waiting until the last minute to charge your car, or wash your dishes, you need to make sure your consumption needs are not immediate. A small change in the way we think about appliances.

Let's not forget about the promise of algae biofuels. You guys, as well as Seeker Daily, have covered several stories about it :)

I would suggest the largest factors are systemic inertia and vested interests in fossil fuels

@quinnnicodemus7613

7 жыл бұрын

dave freier +

@John77Doe

7 жыл бұрын

dave freier We're still venting radioactive steam into the atmosphere from Three Mile Island to this day. We're doing a little bit each year. 😃😂😄😅😆

Short answer: fossil fuel companies have a lot of money and money is everything

@alienmechanic8696

7 жыл бұрын

fossil fuel is cheap ⛽, and the machines that use the fuel is very loud 🔊 and vibrate, and make people horny and giggly 😁

@alienmechanic8696

7 жыл бұрын

fossil fuel is cheap ⛽, and the machines that use the fuel is very loud 🔊 and vibrate, and make people horny and giggly 😁

@kattenelvis1778

7 жыл бұрын

Luckily those companies are loosing ground quickly due to low oil prices and renewable energy

@kattenelvis1778

7 жыл бұрын

Simon WoodburyForget Actually, Solar energy prices has fallen alot over the years and might even make it cheaper than coal and natural gas!

@bitgamer509

7 жыл бұрын

Your a simpleton. How did Apple become the most valuable company in the world when they started with almost no money?

My state [Tasmania] is "100% renewable" except during drought - hydro-electric dams, a few wind farms, with natural gas and diesel generation as in-state backups, and an undersea cable for load-sharing (mainly export) to interstate (Victoria).

I was hoping the video would talk more about how much non-renewable powers generate as opposed to renewables

@vincentrobinette1507

5 жыл бұрын

Without grid scale energy storage, it can't be more than 20% any more, because the fluctuations on the grid, it would hinder more than it would help.

Because oil corporations need their trillions in profits and have a tight grip on the world.

@kingzahak2759

6 жыл бұрын

Because solar and wind energy are not reliable. They relay completely on the weather being merciful.

I'm for renewable, 100%. I'll help by investing.

@thescorpionkiller57

7 жыл бұрын

Lexyvil invest in a real energy source like nuclear

@vincentrobinette1507

5 жыл бұрын

If I were to invest in renewables, I would put my money into recycling programs, and electrical energy storage. Recycling, to recover constituent elements and compounds, which can be used to manufacture the next generation of assets, as well as keep the junk out of the environment. Less fodder for the critics.

I understand that if there is no wind means no power generated and no sun means no power but what about water turbines? most of the planet is covered in water and the current never stops

Intermittency is an intractable deficiency for wind/solar. Since they frequently generate ZERO electricity, they require 100% backup by reliable fossil fuel, nuclear or hydro power.

@FrainBart_main

5 жыл бұрын

Or massive amounts of energy storage. Either way this is very expensive.

Let's shut down all the coal plants and defunct all the oil and gas companies.

@IJoeAceJRI

7 жыл бұрын

then electric bills would increase 1000%. In english, you would have to be a millionare entrepreneur just to pay your energy bill.

@mactastic144

7 жыл бұрын

No, it wouldn't. Renewable energy would replace it all and everyone would get free energy.

@IJoeAceJRI

7 жыл бұрын

What about the silicon tetrachloride from making solar panels?

@mactastic144

7 жыл бұрын

There are more expensive processes to produce solar panels.

@tonyman4467

7 жыл бұрын

Then go build your own fucking solar company and sells us panels.Then when you fail come back and cry for us to pay for your failures.

Because..... lobbying money

when talking about energy from here on out we should speak in ultimate costs. like this Honda civic costs $75,000 instead of $26000. and that 2 billion dollar proposed power plant powered by non renewables costs 9 billion... that electric car cost $40,000 and that wind farm cost $500 million don't sound that scary now

Solar and wind are already cheaper. Just think about it. If you had to run your own generator in your garden, how much would it cost you to install? That's including a shed that keeps noise down and filters to clean exhaust gasses. People always forget about that. But noise and polution are 2 things that solar panels and batteries don't produce. And a decent gas tank also isn't cheap. Then you need to make it safe. More costs. Then you have to buy fuel. A monthly cost solar doesn't have. Maintenance is also way more expensive than solar. solar is soo much cheaper already. A full transistion just takes time.

Not a single word about the coal industry lobbying.. you fail.

@MadFluffysterXaines

7 жыл бұрын

To be fair these are all more valid reasons than other industries working to go against it. A government isnt going to implement more of it until its better than dirtier power, not because they are being bought out by the companies.

@theultimatereductionist7592

6 жыл бұрын

+Xaines Sustainable energy IS better in not causing devastating economic destruction from CO2 emissions causing global warming causing sea levels to rise.

@mg-by7uu

6 жыл бұрын

Democrats & Republicans accept BILLIONS of dollars annually from the same corporate lobbyists. There is no difference between the parties. The government is a private entity(in fact the "federal" reserve is a private bank). As long as people take sides and listen to the 5 corporations that own every news channel in existence the earth will be destroyed and we will remain enslaved. I'm not holding my breath that the average joe will one day be smart enough to figure this out either.

Reliable vs renewable. If wind and solar companies are not subsidized by the government the companies go bankrupt. If we lived in Canada the second largest nation on earth even being that large the country would need to be absolutely covered with solar panels and wind turbines with a population like Canada which is less then the population California we could have a full on socialist energy system completely subsidized by the government. But we do not, The Canadian government would have to provide power to 30 million the people the United States Government would have to provide power roughly 350 million Americans. If it wasn't subsidized your electricity bill would be ridiculously higher if it came strictly from solar or wind because there would only be so much power available. Giving endless amounts of money to these projects is just ridiculous it could be used for something productive and relevant to the real future not strictly based on climate science. We need to stop subsidizing the cult of climate science and make them produce something of value besides models that are always wrong. I'm not saying we will never rely heavily on renewable energy but it's not practical or foreseeable anytime in the near future.

The problem is the return on investment. For example, when I was looking for a new car, I looked into getting a Prius vs a Honda Fit. At the time, the Honda Fit was about $14-15k and a Prius was something like $28k. That was back in 2007. My car has close to 120,000 miles on it now (I went with the Fit). I still have not spent enough money on gas to even cover the difference between the price of the two cars. Let alone the fact that the Prius would still use some gas to offset this even more. My car will probably be dead and buried before I get anywhere near the price difference. Solar panels on the house? Same problem. By the time I actually save enough money to cover the cost of the panels vs the savings on electricity and/or heat, I will probably be dead and buried. Until green options become as cost effective as fossil fuels, only a rare few will adopt the technology. I get that is a chicken and egg issues in that the more people that buy into it, the more costs go down, but not many can afford that initial investment. Especially in today's economy.

Because the "free market" doesn't deem it profitable so there's not a lot of investment. The market is great only if there's profit involved, but when there is none, it fails to provide. The current coal tech is cheaper to run. Green energy needs lots of capital and investments, right now it is too costly for individual firms to undertake the initiative and also mining companies lobbying governments.

Dyson sphere!

Fusion is the future! ... We just have to wait for them to figure out how to do it ... any minute now ...

There are many valuable insight in this video and i pay a great appreciation of it

Can you make a video on "Why you can't go to have bath or exercise after having lunch?"

And dislike because the obvious wasn't mentioned.

While putting more people out of work.

@Tannerman110

7 жыл бұрын

ENJ4321 What's worse, fewer jobs in the energy field or climate change causing widespread disaster?

@longforgotten4823

7 жыл бұрын

ENJ4321 if you don't have to pay such a hefty energy bill you wouldn't need to work so much.

@ENJ4321

7 жыл бұрын

Tanner climate always changes no matter what, it has changed for millions of years. It changes on the macro level and on the micro. So it isn't entirely a "man made" problem. Could we possibly be better to the Earth, sure...we should be taking care of our home. However we have had ice ages, and shifts in major landscapes that had nothing to do with pollution. If the Earth truly got sick of human kind, it would have no problem causing a mass human extinction...shaking us off like fleas.

@ENJ4321

7 жыл бұрын

Long Forgotten the luxuries people like, the trips people take, cars, clothes, jewelry, movies, music, electronics, food, housing, education, innovations, science advancements, deep sea and space explorations, even this very Internet are all things that millions of people with jobs have put time and effort into making. Just by people having jobs and buying things... it makes it so that lots of other things are being created by people. The more money being generated by hard working Americans making purchases, goes into lots of other things. With less people working, unemployed, or lack of consumer confidence, the amount of money being generated and/or made leads to an economy that will be in bad shape...such as what we have now. I know it may be hard for a liberal to understand, but I broke it down for even the most brain dead to follow.

@longforgotten4823

7 жыл бұрын

ENJ4321 you make assumptions that I am liberal. There are more types of people on this earth than your silly and stupid squabble. You at sticking to an outdated and traditional way of doing things. What works now will effect the future. In fact it already is.

I don't want my electric bill raised $199 a year. And thats a sales pitch, oldest trick in the books, may as well have said $199.99. In Europe their electric bills have skyrocketed. Shove this green energy sideways!

@gavinmeinzer6024

5 жыл бұрын

200 dollars over one year is 16 dollars a month. If you're hard pressed to find that, then there's an issue. And please don't say "prices in Europe" as that denotes all European countries are the same which they are not. On average Europeans pay about 20 cents per kw hour and the average in the us is about 14. So not much cheaper. And again each state is different. Hawaii has about 32 cents per kw hour while Oklahoma only has 8 cents per kw hour. And the Euro is worth more than the USD so even though it is more expensive on average in Europe, it evens itself out. Please stop being so selfish and realize that renewables, whether solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear are in the long run much better. Fossil fuels and coal will NOT last forever. They are a finite resource, and are projected to run out soon. Renewables on the other hand are just that. Practically infinite. There are issues with them including storage capacity and energy output, but we are on the cusp of developing the technologies to perfect these problems. Most of Europe plans to phase out coal usage by the mid to late 2020's while we project to continue using it indefinitely. Eventually, renewables will pay for themselves and the costs will go down, but until then, it just got to be something that the population has to be okay with. People need to look ahead and realize what's at the end of the road instead of only seeing the immediate problem.

I learn so much from yall's videos thank you

Did he really not mention oil? Or fossil fuel political campaign donors? Or the problems of integrating intermittent energy sources with the grid? And does he really think "there are places that run entirely on renewables already"? That ignores transportation, and the countries concerned rely on hydropower or geothermal and have small populations. Poor video, DNews.

@VastHorizons71

7 жыл бұрын

klondike444 oil is a fosil fuel

@klondike444

7 жыл бұрын

+Mr killer of noobs You don't say. As so often when talking about renewables, there was no clear distinction made between "energy" and "electricity". Not mentioning oil, on which we depend just as much as on coal and gas, leaves a gaping whole in such discussions.

@nathanritscherle6667

7 жыл бұрын

Denmark and a couple other European countries are self sufficient with renewable energy.

@klondike444

7 жыл бұрын

+Nathan Ritscherle No European country is "self sufficient with renewable energy". Look for evidence of that. You won't find it.

Short answer: UNADULTERATED GREED.

Wrong question. We are using it. It's only that they have become cheap very recently so it takes time to change our energy matrix. We need cheap energy storage too to reach renewable energy to its full capacity.

In the short term, we need to convert as much of our energy to Natural Gas as possible. It burns 1/3rd cleaner than petrol and coal, and because it burns cleaner, the machines which run it last longer and require less maintenance and replacement. Additionally, anything that can run off of petrol can ALREADY run off of NG, all it needs is an adapter to input the gaseous fuel into the burn chamber. Solar technology has had some huge improvements in the last few months. It won't be too long before it's actually efficient enough to replace fossil fuels. We just need to give it a little longer to improve and come down in price. HOWEVER ... something we need to remember ... solar requires BATTERIES. Batteries are an ecological nightmare of toxic chemicals at the moment. We also need to improve our battery technology ... which we are doing, but again, it's just going to take a little while before that's also ready. In the mean time ... Natural Gas makes us a full 1/3rd cleaner IMMEDIATELY, and reduces many other overall costs.

If everyone were to just put solar panels on their roofs then we would need hardly any power plants

you're forgetting geothermal, it's scalable and the only downside is the earth cools slightly faster which shouldn't be a problem with how much is lost due to volcanoes.

How much warmer is it exactly?

i partly own a wind mill with a lot of other people having a deal with the energy company they basicly deduct the energy created by the windmill from my energy bill so i only need to pay the delta left. its also 100% local renewable what the company deliver. problem tough is that my transport is still gasoline. Tesla's are sadly still to expensive for me to buy

You guys should cover liquid fluoride thorium reactors or LFTR for short.

Because there is a shitload of money to be made with fossil fuels. In Switzerland we have voted to keep nuclear plants running even tho these plants don't generate revenue. The Thorium reactir is an alternitive to classical nuclear energy it's just that we can't make bombs out of Thorium and throw them around on people that we wouldn't wanna talk with.

Nice presentation, but the real reasons are firstly energy cartels, next is the cost of infrastructure, and lastly is industry being unwilling to invest in alternative fuels such as hydrogen

Ok but my question is why don't current non-renewable companies invest in clean energy? I mean it makes the most sense, and as everyone points out there will be a point in the future where these energy sources aren't available. Plus, while it may be a big investment upfront, they will only have to pay for upkeep thereafter (seems like a better deal). I just don't get the excuse that they pay off congressmen/women so that everything can remain status quo. I mean, as a *business*, why would you do that? I wasn't a business major, but it's pretty intuitive that if you don't innovate with the rest of the crowd, you'll be left behind. BP Solar knows what's up

@Yonkage

7 жыл бұрын

The point where those sources aren't available anymore will be after those currently in charge are already dead. If you think a rich person won't completely doom humanity tomorrow to make the maximum profit today, you're wrong.

@JazzyNym

7 жыл бұрын

Yonkage You bring up a very valid point. Didn't even think about that

I support green energy and I'm realistic about its development. If improvements in energy storage and transmission do make green energy more competitive you a $/btu basis, I'm still not sure that's enough to curb the U.S. demand for oil and gas. Even if the public accepts much higher energy bills, I doubt they would be as willing to accept higher petrochemical costs because so many consumer products are derived from those materials. Further, we're still stuck in a situation where, if the US weens off of fossil fuels it would cause a huge transfer of wealth from US to producing nations in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa (few of which are seen as idealogical allies). It would also be a tremendous burden on the poor in this country and others. It's fine for middle class families in the US to accept spikes in energy and consumer goods but for those already living on the fringe, especially in developing nations, it could be catastrophic.

To those dragging their feet due to costs and not wanting higher taxes. How much do you think it will cost to move cities and restructure most of the agriculture sector?... Here is a hint. A *lot* more.

@mervjohnson8010

7 жыл бұрын

Money (as a concept) is a resources as valuable as joules. Economics can't be ignored any more than thermodynamics.

@mervjohnson8010

7 жыл бұрын

The reason we stopped the space race with the Russians was because we ran out of money (and we felt pretty good after getting to the moon anyway). Money is imaginary but the resources it represents aren't. It moves raw materials from one place to another, it moves people to go to work on those raw materials, it moves the product of that labor to someone who wants it in exchange for their own labor. None of that happens on its own. Economics is people.

@mervjohnson8010

7 жыл бұрын

*shrugs* Imagine yourself a corned beef sandwich. lol

@angelic8632002

7 жыл бұрын

+Kevin Brand So why not explain to me how I am "retarded" since I have no idea where that came from. To me this is fairly obvious. Or you misunderstood my op.

@kevinbrand2836

7 жыл бұрын

Serah Wint Misunderstood. Sry its like 3am for me

We're looking into getting solar panels installed on our roof this year.

Why are incentives taken away from people wanting to utilize alternative energy resources while corporations promoting oil, gas and coal are being given huge subsidies? Too much of the research, development of infrastructure and marketing to the public is being undermined at this point for green energy to be viable. IMO this is the biggest reason why it is not so "mainstream".

@jarynn8156

7 жыл бұрын

These subsidies are a mixed truth. When people attack oil and gas industries for being subsidized, 99 times out of 100, they are referring to the federal government allowing the use of federal land for drilling. They also refer to government research funds to assist in developing more efficient extraction, transportation, and refining processes. The former in particular is an incredibly weak argument seeing as how the federal government owns much of the US's oil reserves, making it impossible to drill without these "subsidies".

You forget the fact that to make these solar panels for example, they need to dig up a huge amount of rare earth elements. As you know or may not know, a lot of these elements are done for in a year or 20-30 probably faster then when oil has run out. There are however some techniques to restore these elements from used solar panels but a lot more research is required to lift these techniques to their fullest potential. As the top comment says , nuclear power is probably the best way forward.

If you're going to compare the cost over a power plant's lifetime, please also compare the emissions. The cost of renewable energy may only be a little higher, but over a power plant's lifetime it also creates only a little less pollution. If we are to save the environment, we need something radically different, like nuclear fusion.

what are moles and flat moles ? what is there purpose and how do u remove them

The subsidies for wind and solar are not the same as for fossil fuels. The subsidies for fossil fuels comes out to about 1 cent per gallon of gasoline.

We in Iceland use natural hot water to make electricity. It's cheap to :)

@jarynn8156

7 жыл бұрын

Not everyone lives on a volcanic island, unfortunately.

INSIDE SCOOP!!!!! Since power companies are private companies but have a location monopoly, they are regulated by the public service commissions in each state. In Wisconsin, they can only charge about 20% more than what it cost to make the electricity. The more it costs, the more they make. The investors want to see a profit on their investment, so the power company has to choose THE MOST EXPENSIVE method of producing the electricity. If the companies were in real open competition on an open market or if they were a pure public utility; either way FREE power would win out. But because they profit based company with a location monopoly and their profit model is regulated by law by how much the energy costs; they have to choose the most expensive method.

As a student studying renewable energy technology, I do believe green energy like wind and photovoltaic will not take off unless its backed by our state and federal government

I found this video to be a bit misleading. It feels more like a pitch as to why we should use renewables instead of explaining why we aren't using them more like the title suggested.

"Which Countries Will Be Underwater Due To Climate Change?" None, the ice is just going to the south pole and re-freezing. Now, pH levels of oceans, that will remain an issue.

Hey julian I have a question for you.I recently saw you in a video at nvidia geforce youtube channel about CES 2017 with soldier tech at the end of the video there was some stuff about self driving cars and my question is, don't you think that self driving cars is also an issue ? creating unemployed people? You're science guy right?

Why don't we run more geothermal energy? It seems to me that geothermal energy could be a consistent and efficient form green energy supply. It does take a lot of water but that same water can be constantly recycled. Better yet the amount of energy output from geothermal allows it to be self powering with excess output which could be put back into the hydro-electric power grid.

I have been trying since 2005 to get funding for a renewable energy production facility to replace coal and natural gas for power plants! The latest reason why I am not able to get funding is: "I don't have a large enough online presence!:

The answer is easy. Power - the gas molecule is the most powerful on Earth (beats out TNT) and nothing can rival the energy produced. Reliability - Still a huge problem and one that requires two systems - a sustainable one for advantageous times and a grid backup when needed. The costs is still not economical and the infrastructure remains to be created. Other than that we're fine;

c'mon. we are talking about gigawatts of energy. It is funny to consider solar and wind or other form of renewable energy, even all combined, as a RELIABLE source of energy since again we need gigawatts of it. Well, to my mind renewables are fit for not big local communities whereas megapolis and industrial zones need either nuclear or fusion energy.

@FrainBart_main

5 жыл бұрын

GW of energy? :) Germany has around 100 GW of solar and wind installed. The biggest problems are diluteness and intermittency, scalability is not one of them.

@robinsss

3 жыл бұрын

hydro can replace fossil fuels no need for batteries

Here in Denmark the target is 75% of electricity and heat by 2020.

Well, the politicians are sponsored by the oil companies. Tada!

Solar on every roof and a new low voltage appliance and lighting environment! Transmission losses in the grid range from 15% to 30% and everyone of the little transformers plugged in around your house to your phone, computer (that one may be inside), modem, HEPA filter, CD player etc., produces heat and more energy losses. A low voltage environment coupled with roof top generation eliminate massive waste and a better world for us all. As well as a distributed, robust, democratic power system :)

I'm on board the renewables train. I use B100 in one car and will be using E100 in the other car shortly. Right now it only tolerates e40 without complaining.

We really should note that battery technology at this point is no where near the point where large scale electricity storage is commercially viable. (and battery science hasn't advanced a whole lot relative to other fields in the last century. much of the limit is on the material level. ) Also, the cost of solar wind tend to very much underestimate or wholly ignore the cost of transmission that comes with it. because the reality is if we're going to make more than say... 15% of electric output on a grand scale grid that's going into high variable source like Wind / Solar, the entire grid probably need to be remade. because the existing grid is built for much more stable sources of traditional generation. Also, the long term cost of maintenance is often suspected of being quite a bit higher than traditional generator if for nothing else due to it's much more spread out nature. (and this also goes back to another point that if we're really going to scale up solar / wind that much, land would become a serious issue pretty quickly in many countries. ) Wind especially is also much more prone to being damaged or entirely destroyed by ... well.. wind (and weather.). as ironic as that might sound. That isn't to say we shouldn't look into it and keep developing, but one does need to point out that a lot of the solar / wind proponents are probably painting too bright of a picture here, there's A LOT of problems that need to be addressed and the more you use it the bigger the problem actually becomes. (which is the opposite of most other stuff's commercial viability.) Also, it's easy to sit here saying your willing to pay a higher bill (and generally Americans waste electricity at an unimaginable magnitude anyway )　but that is a very bad way to frame things in general since in the longer term commercial competitiveness has very very rarely not won out. Also, it's not just the cost issue, the reliability issue is probably the bigger concern. and if you think it's OK, to have some blackouts here and there, I can assure you that no one in any industrial sector would agree with you at all, and by "industrial" I'm not talking about steel mills, I'm talking about Silicon Valley and even Wall Street. (which is now largely run on high power intensive super computers. ) if there's even one serious unexpected black out in either place the loss is astronomical and that must be considered as well. I was just recently in North West China where there's basically endless wind farms, but even then China's not really kidding themselves that they can use wind as primary wind source anytime soon. that's why they're investing extremely heavily in Nuclear, which is probably at this current point, the most plausible and logical technology to use if we want both reasonable cost / high reliability / low pollution energy.

I think the government should cut some of the subsidies they give to fossil fuels and give half of it to renewables. Then they should be about the same price I would imagine. You can actually buy renewable energy through your electric grid by changing the supplier.