Will Climate Change Stop If We Stop Emitting Carbon Tomorrow? | Hot Mess đ
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 29. 08. 2018
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you đ) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/DonateMESS
Please SUBSCRIBE! âșâș bit.ly/hotmess_sub
And support us on Patreon: / hotmesspbs
Imagine that aliens landed and gifted us a clean, limitless energy source. And instead of killing each other over this technology, we decided to immediately transform the world into a carbon-free society. This wonderous source would power our homes, industries, cars and planes, and humanityâs annual rate of carbon pollution would almost instantly fall to zero. So if we kicked our carbon addiction tomorrow, what would that mean for global warming?
Connect with us on:
Twitter: / hotmesspbs
Instagram: / hotmesspbs
Facebook: / hotmesspbs
References: bit.ly/2wqZ7aQ
-----------
Host/Editor-In-Chief: Joe Hanson
Writer: Eli Kintisch
Creative Director: David Schulte
Editors/Animators: Karl Boettcher
Producers: Stephanie Noone & Amanda Fox
Story Editor: Alex Reich
-----------
Produced by PBS Digital Studios
Theme Music: Eric Friend/Optical Audio
Music: APM
Stock images from www.shutterstock.com
Thanks to the funders of Peril & Promise for supporting PBS Digital Studios. Peril & Promise is a national public media initiative from WNET telling human stories of climate change and its solutions. Learn more at www.pbs.org/wnet/peril-and-pro...
All those corporations would go nuts. In reality they dont care about the environment. They care about the money going into their pockets only.
That is true, but also the climate garb as a lie, intended to sell solar and wind, because they actually consume more product per kilowatt hour, making it a bigger business.
We all know oil companies and oil rich countries would try to kill the aliens for providing us a free energy source.
how do you know the united states owned oil companies hasnt done that already ? how do you know the men in black isnt a oil company ?
especially FPL
or rather take it, and create a nonopoly to sell it to everyone else
COMMUNISM IS THE ANSWER TO THROW OUT THESE IMBECILES CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE ACCUMULATION OF MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY
@@SwastikSwarupDas I said they'd try. I'm not saying they'd be successful.
"Technology to suck CO2 right out of the sky!" You mean trees?
Also... more CO2 will grow more trees! It's a win win!
Mostly algea
@@atthezebo8016 and trees are dying from climate change plants need very little co2 to survive and there growth and reproductive success is not correlated at all
No,technology to â suck âcarbon dioxide right out of the sky.
Then when CO2 levels fall to where all those trees they plant die and no crops will grow we will either die of starvation or be slaves to the system that has the genetically altered food crops that grow without carbon dioxide.
Soylent â Red â. The food from plants that breathe oxygen
I live 6 km away from a nuclear plant, the air I breathe everyday is clean af and I donât remember a single time that the plant was even remotely close to being dangerous
They said that in Fukushina a few years ago. They said that in Chernobyl a few decades ago. All the energy being released is adding to the heating of Earth. It's part of the problem. The sea close to nuclear plants is hot, I've visited and sampled the water. Most inefficient method of transfgerring energy; steam power.
Go to Fresno California its so polluted that you can't see the sky and sometimes you can't go outside because its to hot i know first hand what its like I lived there half my life, and if that doesn't satisfy you compare the heat and the water levels and the forest to what they once were and hopefully you'll see the damage people like you cause our world.
@@kaiminero688 Yea, I know the area as well and I can second that. For two years or so, I lived in Springville, CA (around 30 minutes east of Porterville) and it was a bit better for us, since we were a bit up the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas, but whenever we went to Porterville for groceries or other things, the air was horrible. I remember seeing a smog line every day in the morning, thinking of how it would've been like to live there and go to school in that polluted mess. It was also hella hot as you said, over 100 degrees for every day of the summer. It got to 107-110 for long stretches of time as well, which was just hell. The central valley is one of the worst places to live in the United States, at least for weather and pollution. The whole thing is basically full of oil pumpjacks, factory food farms miles upon miles of dry ass fields with unhealthy crops and more unhealthy people. It's just sad. Since then I've moved to the coast, which is way better for pollution and living conditions, but it's godawful expensive. California's just really not the best place to live (unless you're rich). Hope you got out of there or can in the future, the central valley sucks ass.
Nuclear energy has plenty of benefits which can't be overstated. Obviously, it's theoretically carbon-neutral. Things like fuel transport absolutely do emit some carbon, but its fuel is ridiculously energy-dense, reducing the amount that needs to be transported. It's _far_ more concentrated than solar or wind; a small nuclear power plant can still produce ~1 GW of power, comparable to hundreds of onshore wind turbines or several square kilometers of solar panels. Nuclear also has the benefit of being more consistent, not relying on good sunlight or strong winds, which reduces the "swinginess" of power output. (Speaking of which, power generated by spinning heavy turbines, like nuclear but not like typical solar/wind, builds up a reserve of kinetic energy which helps cushion against swings in power generation/usage. Small benefit, but a benefit.) And so on, and so forth.
Yes, nuclear has downsides. But *no form of energy is perfect,* and the biggest downsides of nuclear energy are overstated. Disasters like Fukishima and Chernobyl were complicated by equipment that was obsolete even then, as well as terrible luck (Fukishima) and turning off some safety systems as part of a test (Chernobyl); building plants away from areas where natural disasters are common and being more careful when we test what happens when things go wrong will help things not go wrong as often. As for nuclear waste, we have many proposed solutions. Beyond that, it's not as bad of a situation as it sounds; because the radiation is released over tens of thousands of years, the energy flux is very low. I wouldn't want to eat it, but you can swim in a spent fuel pool without any problems except the reactor's security guards.
Nuclear isn't a panacea; it shouldn't be our only tool. But it's still useful, and should still be considered as such when talking about how to power a post-carbon world.
The cost also cannot be overstated.... :( Economics matters. Wind and solar are ~1/3 the cost per kWh. ~1/10th the cost per watt.
Christopher Dizon - We'd be better off adopting something which gives a lot of energy with relatively low resource usage.
Cost matters. Solar pays back the energy required to manufacture it in ~2 years. Wind in ~6 months. Even if nuclear only took 1 day... at ~$15/w it won't work. More than enough resources to build enough wind and solar... that's not a problem. $$$ is. Economics matters... nuclear won't work.
Yeah, we'll see how well those economics work when you're replacing an area of solar panels that's twice the size of Texas every 20 to 30 years, along with batteries the size of small countries every 10 to 20 years. Resources are not a problem, he says!
More like Connecticut every ~40 years.... but even a Texas sized array would be cheaper than nuclear :/landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequired1000.jpg
It was weird when he did not say "Stay Curious" at the end.
How curious...
Well it made you curious why he didn't say it didn't it?
@@felixthefox100 no
More curious is that he does the numbers realizing that zero emission from today onwards, will only reduce temperature rise by 0.5 degrees C over the next 40 years, so he knows this won't curb food shortage and geopolitical turmoil, but he still thinks that this eventually will be solved. In 40 years we will be 11.5 billion people many of which have a much better standard of living, so our food demand will be at least 50% higher if meat consumption stays the same. That alone means more methane. A world without oil is also a world without plastic and many industrial products. You could choose to use bio plastic and maybe bio oil, but that will take up much needed farmland for food production. Secondly we are beyond the trigger points for avalance effects like the methane bound on the ocean bottom and in the perm frost, the the 0.5C reduction will possibly not be measurable. Funny thing is that we will go back to a pre industrial life style whether we decide it or not. The numbers simply doesn't add up whatever way we approach this. So the conclusion is childishly stupid. PBS space time has no problem contemplating on the death of the universe, Why is popular climate science so stupidly naive? Oh I forgot, the fewer people dying with less air pollution also add to the problem. What is needed is population reduction globally, so that this new less habitable planet can feed who is left. This can be done voluntarily by a global less than two children per couple policy, or earth will do it for us!
Demographic policies failed miserably all over the world. People do not comply.
Also - even today we produce enough food for like 11 bil. people, but around 40% gets lost in the supply chain. In developing countries at harvest and transportation, in developed - in distribution sector. Food either does not pass 'cucumber curvature' tests, or gets thrown away as shelf life ends. And there's a HUGE room for improvement.
Highly mechanized large-scale industrial agriculture produces a revenue of about $25 per acre.
Small-scale properly designed sustainable producers sometimes exceed $4000 revenue per acre mark. And that's not just because 'organic sells for more'. It's because they are efficient.
So what we need is not less people, but more sustainable production.
Just a thought, I am Scots, I live surrounded by tides and currents, they could provide more energy than we could ever use, So, forget wind and use what we have 4 tides every day, 2 in , 2 out. its time we changed our outlook. Use what we have 24/7.
somewhere up north Scotland where the weather freezes your willy some island is doing this
Scotland already has 97% of its power powered by renewables. Maybe it could be exported south.
0:11 - yellow homie got excited down below
ask wakanda for help
Shhhhhhhh. King T'challa will hear you and punish you.
@@sbxgii we will be spotted
*wHAtS wAKAndA?*
*_W A K A N D A F O R E V A_*
@@maxstavrakis55 wakanda ball- wait no
0:00 that clean source is called Nuclear Energy... but no one is ready to close their existing power plants...
Well fusion fits the description more, fission is still the best we got though
Byteau nuclear kinda counts as weird form renewable, the reason for this is that is because you need so little uranium to make a plant work, and thereâs a lot of uranium under ground and under water
Then there is thorium which needs only a little bit of plutonium to get it kickstarted and have better output than uranium.
Bashir Sfar the toxic waste is not as harmful as CO2 and other emissions. Nowhere near as bad. It just has to be contained and/or repurposed. âWasteâ seemed unusable for normal power plants can still generate electricity for smaller household-sized power plants. Thorium is a radioactive element that produces a lot less nuclear waste and radiation than traditional nuclear sources.
Bashir Sfar fusion isnât effective now, because itâs still being experimented on, for the most part they are waiting for technology to improve, along the line of magnets to make them smaller and require less energy to operate, once that goal is achieved nuclear fusion then will become a reality
Corona virus: fine I'll do this myself
TIL everyone should just unalive to save the world.
@@bobbysworld281995 THANOS DID NOTHING WRONG
Why was it much hotter in the 30âs with lower CO2 levels?
Wow things are even worse than I thought, I'm really afraid now for my future, among other things, now I need to take into consideration the fact that I can't live in a certain place because it will be underwater by the time I will afford to buy a house...
bullshit. all the richest most powerful people. Many of them screaming the global warming mantra. They all own huge mansions right next to the ocean.
You shouldn't be worried. Keep learning. Keep asking questions. Dont be afraid
@@cfvgd Not only they own mansions next to the beach, but they buy them while and after they scream "climate change will sink the beaches"
You need to be very grateful to your teacher for instilling fear in you. Now you can shrivel up and become a socialist like her.
I do hate how typical 'Greens' completely sidestep the nuclear energy option.
Yes, you can disagree on the safety case regarding nuclear accidents
-which, in regarding to large scale accidents, can essentially be engineered to be impossible with new designs
-which, even accounting for the large scale accidents, has arguably caused the fewest deaths of any energy source.
You can argue about the handling of nuclear waste
-which, with advanced reactor designs, can ensure the full burn up of the fuel elements and reduce the storage lifetime needs to a couple hundred years
-which is contained and managed waste, that even if handled improperly will harm very few people, unlike energy sources that produce pollution
-which contains fission products of many valuable radioactive isotopes for scientific and medical studies
Yes, you can be fearful of radiation
-Which is already all around us, and even increasing background levels by several times has been shown to not cause any real harm.
-which some studies have shown that moderately elevated levels have increased overall health.
-which, compared to many other easily accessible toxic poisons, is very difficult to get a hold of for nefarious purposes.
You can disagree on the economic case due to the expense of nuclear implementation
-which, until the 1980s was very affordable and competitive. The induced paranoia around nuclear brought over-regulation and the introduction of many redundant safety systems which made it expensive
-which has new designs being researched that remove risk factors which will also remove the need for many of the engineered safety systems.
-which doesn't have the hidden costs of other renewables in the upgrading of the electrical system to incorporate storage and backup generation, making the value of their electricity decrease as their proportion of generation increases
-which requires small amounts of materials, and small land impact compared to pretty much any other energy source. As long as construction and operating costs can be kept low, nuclear has huge potential to be cheap. The anti-nuclear movement has done everything in their power to ensure that these costs have become bloated.
ummmm... nuclear waste....? what about that?
What about nuclear waste?
There is a perception around nuclear waste that it needs to be stored safely for tens of thousands of years or else all sorts of harms will be unleashed upon the world. Mutants will pop up left and right and widespread contaminated areas will become lifeless and desolate death zones. And since we can't feasibly protect this waste for tens of thousands of years, it will inevitably be unleashed upon some future descendants of the world. This perception is more dangerous than the waste itself.
Firstly, as I stated before, we can reduce the dangerous lifetime of the waste to 200-300 years. This is a timescale that, while still long, is a manageable number.
Secondly, why does nuclear waste stand out to be all that different from chemical and electronic wastes? There are many long-lived chemical waste depositories around, and electronic wastes, that leach poisonous metals often just end up in a common landfill. Nuclear waste is handled much better than these other dangerous substances, and no one has ever been harmed by properly managed nuclear waste.
Third, waste, by its definition, is a controlled and managed substance, unlike pollution. And the amount waste produced is less than every other energy source (including wind and solar).
Fourth, Even in a worst case scenario, where a storage cask cracks open and radioactive contaminants leach into the soil and water, the amount that enters the ecosystem will likely be so small that it will likely not do any harm. Organisms are actually quite tolerant to mild elevations in radiation, and additionally, most radioactive isotopes are highly reactive, meaning that they will easily bind to the rocks and soil in their immediate area, leading to very low dispersion.
Fifth, Many valuable isotopes get created during the fission processes. Waste stops being waste once it becomes seen as a resource. So, instead of trying to find new and inventive ways of storing it away, perhaps we should be trying to utilize it towards a valuable purpose.
I do hate how nuclear zealots ignore how absurdly expensive nuclear is vs how absurdly cheap wind and solar are....
Yes but from a quick search I see a nuclear reactor provides about 14000 MWH /24h and a wind turbine produces 36 MWH which means u need nearly 400 wind turbines to make up a single nuclear reactor
+Adventureer 500, I completely agree with your sentiment, however I think your math is a little wrong. You see, those turbines will nearly never be operating at full capacity, so you'll probably need 2X as many. Also if you want enough energy for longer term storage options, you had better install 3X as many. So, 1200 turbines should cover it.
Now storage ... If you are basing the primary grid on intermittent renewables, this will likely cost as much as the 400 - 1200 turbines again, though this storage will likely only last 1-5 days at best, so you'll also need backup generators, just in case. This backup will again cost nearly as much as 400 turbines. There are also costs to upgrade the grid and connect all these resources, but I'll ignore that for now.
So total cost to match one reliable nuclear reactor will be around 2000 - 2800 turbines worth, and solar works out pretty much the same. (I think nuclear can compete with that)
+Christopher Dizon, while the above may be nothing but an estimate, it does point out the limitations of intermittent renewables. These renewables can indeed produce cheap energy, however, the value that they bring to the grid steadily decreases as their proportion increases. So, even incumbent nuclear technologies can compete because they do not need all these backups. But why use these old technologies, as they are still stuck using 1970's nuclear designs. Use the new designs that they are coming out with right now. I guarantee that the ones that pass will be much cheaper and safer than any of the other old reactor systems out there.
-Also, I didn't ignore the argument around the costs of nuclear, as I included several points regarding nuclear economic arguments. If you disagree with what I stated then argue your point rather than rejecting it out of hand.
This is soul crushing...
Very good simplification of a very important topic.
Simon Clark did a video about this theme, and it's interesting that everyone thinks if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases, we would somehow instantaneously get to have the climte that was before the industrial revolution. Still we shouldn't discourage people from fighting against climate change
We already have technologies which can pull carbon from the environment (oceans/air), we just need the energy to make them work.
Exacto, si tuvieramos una fuente de energĂa ilimitada podrĂamos bajar el CO2 tanto como quisieramos...
More trees?
Well, we can't really plant more trees when we're cutting them all down to make wood products.
We aren't cutting down the forests just to "make wood products". And not just for paper, as well. Most of it is for making new farmlands to feed the ever growing human population
It's not the demand for farmland that's driving the destruction of forests, it's the demand for wood products, farming is just a final use for the land. In fact, if you look at many forested areas in the US and Canada, the trees are harvested in a checker pattern, this is because the trees are logged to produce wood products, but the land is not being used for farmland, it's being replanted with trees which can be harvested once they've matured.
Edit: So we are planting trees, but just so we can cut them down again. Overall, global forestland is shrinking.
Add the fact that the earth has been heating up since the end of the ice age
Actually, it's been heating up since before the end of the last ice age. That's what ended the last ice age.
But not in the abrupt way it is now. Slow climate change can be adapted to.
Excellent video.
We should set up a gofundme for climate change.
Hell yeah! Lets do it! Want my e-mail?
With a target of 70 billion dollars...start now!
Kent Deal
Then when we finish that target, $96 Billion!
@@Coolsomeone234, actually I was off by three zeros, should be 70 trillion dollars, my bad!
The earth has nearly 8 billion people, assuming at least 1/8 of the people in the world have 70 dollars to spare in their bank account is very likely. Do the math, it's really not that difficult if we stop fighting pointless wars for oil.
"So aliens land and give us the sun?" that was my first thought. Still a great video, but I had a chuckle at that.
Whose here from minute earth? đ Love this new channel!
Getting cold as the fall sets in here in New England. Time to set up my lawn chair in the yard and spend my weekends spraying aerosol cans in the air. Need to spread that ozone hole a tad.
4:25 algae and plankton
Trees don't actually pull out that much CO2 from the atmosphere. If anything, the photosynthesizing algae and plankton in the ocean do a whallop more than the trees can ever do in their lifetimes (turning it into oxygen). Which is why global climate change is so damaging, because the CO2 gets in the oceans making it more acidic, and makes it much harder for those organisms to survive to pull the CO2 out of the atmosphere in the first place, not to mention the coral and tiny shell-making organisms I can't remember the name of off the top of my head have a harder time too.
I am sorry if you were trying to be sarcastic or make a joke here, and I didn't take it as such. However, dismissing the comment made at 4:25 is rather unhelpful to the discussion the video creator wanted us to talk about.
Thank you for beating me to this!
exactly ! well said !! also minnows and big zooplankton like krill will atrophy on higher carbonic acid levels (lower PH of the sea) --- so as each tier is dependent on the other, a 'truly' dead sea is coming ! scummy dead one may absorb more sun heat than a healthy one - so we'll REALLY start to heat up then ! invest in pop vending machines! icecube makers !
That is super discouraging
thorium reactors.
THORIUM REACTORS
I'm laughing when he said artic melting
So what Iâm hearing is plant more trees, after getting to zero emissions?
Yes -- there are natural and artificial ways to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, from planting trees to regenerative agriculture, to direct air capture; injecting Co2 into basalts as they do in Iceland, or even using CO2 to make concrete.
@@professorspf Maybe just stop cutting forests and forget about limiting fossils?
Great video and awesome content like before! What would be more interesting though, would be to consider what kind of impacts it would have if we changed to solely solar and wind power tomorrow. How could we tackle the huge need for storage of electricity? The need for batteries would be huge. What kind of impacts on environment and valuable nature would the mining of raw materials for those batteries have? What options would we have for storing power? Would power-to-gas technologies or even CO2 capture technologies provide more ecological storage? What possibilities would there be in intelligent industry production at the times when electricity is cheapest?
one very promising energy storage method is through potential energy instead of batteries. We could pump water from a lower elevation reservoir to a higher one and then release it to drive turbines. There are plenty of ideas that are similar to this that are cheap, effective and don't require super batteries which are expensive to maintain and build.
Please make a video explaining the correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming
It's a hoax.
Lol at 4:13 right as he said 10% less crop yield my phone gave me a notification you have 10% battery left.
Restore the planets decimated forests and woodlands.
Figuring out a way to grow large areas of seaweed in the open ocean which could then be tossed into the depths would also work towards that goal.
The extra CO2 is already doing that.
Forrestation has increased actually.
It does help, only to a limited extent, most likely to cancel 10% of the carbon emissions.
The carbon cloud we have in the atmosphere wonât clear it up immediately, in order for that to be cleaned up, We need to plant 70 acres of trees daily
Still waiting for these alians...
Well put video
Oh the diamond is so so so colorful and beautiful. BTW ur video was nice and cool
C02 is a good thing. Itâs what all life is based on.
Is that what you think? Don't think much of your education. You may breathe CO2 but I prefer O. It's what my species breathes and has always breathed, and we didn't evolve until trees and other plants had sequestered much of it and replaced it with oxygen. Then land animals evolved. Those trees became coal and opil under pressure and you want it returned to the atmosphere?
Aliens are already among us!
This is clearly a reference to a specific anime i have seen
Thank you
Yet another reason we should be investigating geo-engineering ideas.
Nuclear, now! Stop acting on this channel as if it wasn't the most viable option. No need for a repeat of SciShow...
Until a massive solar flare hits earth (as predicted to be a 12% chance in the next decade by NASA) and then every reactor on the planet melts down sending us into an apocalypse.
... What the f*** do you think a reactor is? Voodoo? I'm guessing you're alluding to a mass EMP (which is not a thing that would happen, but let's say it does, and all over Earth too), ALL Gen 3 and above are designed to automatically shut down. Aka, IF you cut power, the process slows down, not accelerate. You just don't have meltdowns with modern power plants. It's like comparing the technology of the first generation of cars and modern electric cars. You and yours are literally running the clock down with misinformation.
How dense are you? Lol...
well, i don't know much about nuclear things but ill try to ask from what i know, if you cut down the power, wouldn't all the water cooling the reactor evaporate and by that making everything hot and melt stuff and (i don't know how) explode sending massive radiation waves through earth?
Foxy Plays correct - edit: correction, the old rods that have been taken out of the reactor and are no longer of use are what would be the problem.
I love this content
*aggressively throws ice cubes on to the ground*
What if Carbon emissions stopped tomorrow?My dreams have come true!
We'd have other ways to generate power as they said in the beginning of the video. And the planet would not shut down. The Earth would not suddenly crumble just because there's a bit less Carbon Dioxide in the air.
@Sheri K people just don't get it. I think most of them live in metro areas and have no clue how much they rely on fossil fuel. They think they can solve everything by riding their bike to work.
@@WizardToby The civilized world would end because all chains of transportation of people and goods would all but cease to exist, food production would end, electrical grids would fizz out and the only ones left with any chance for survival are those that can hide or those who take what you have left.
At least half of the world's population would be dead within a year.
If you listened to the video, they said there would be an ALTERNATE supply of power that doesnât involve burning carbon.
Well, about 20 countries would go completely broke, everywhere else won't be able to make as many products, millions of people will be homeless and/or unemployed, half the world will have shortages or have no power
My point is, EVERYONE's gonna have a bad time
We should do this not tomorrow, but RIGHT NOW.
YOU should do this right now - no gas / no fuel / no plastics / no fertilizer/ no paints / no concrete / vegan diet
@@jimlofts5433 Not possible, our cities were build based on these things, its too late for people who rely on these
The planet is just fine
@@laboot7447 There are options. Things like zero-waste shops and locally sourced food are becoming more popular. We shouldn't focus on living the *perfect* lifestyle for the environment, as there will be few people who manage to do it, instead, we should focus on as many people as possible to make small changes - that will have the biggest impact.
Great Video
"speed up the cooling"... snowpiercer? .. that will be fun
"ALIENS" are not necessary for clean energy, Joe.
aliens need oxygen too ! (carbonic acid, product of co2 and saltwater, kills the plankton which make your air !
CO2 is not dirty.
Nuclear power is the best way to cut fosile fuel dependences, if you look at all the resources consumed with many green energy equipment for any large scale it is still fairly impactful, and it doesn't even displace fosile fuels as they can't provide energy all the time. Nuclear power is fairly small in its enviromental footprint, and actually displaces fosile fuels where they're built, also newer generation of reactors are much more efficient and safer, and there are definitely ways that are already known to deal with waste in a way it doesn't harm the environment; yes solar, and other "green" energy can be part of the energy diet but it won't be the main provider for the foreseeable future unless someone comes up with off peak storage sollution, and even then suplementing it with nuclear is still the way to go just for the energy desities.
*Some interesting statistics*
Global Nuclear Capacity 1987 = 300 GW and 2017 = 351 GW (30 years, 17% increase)
Global Solar PV Capacity 2016 = 302 GW and 2017 = 405 GW (1 year, 34% increase)
Solar PV Capacity Projections for 2020 = 500 GW and 2050 = 4,600 GW
I'm afraid the train has left the station, and nuclear missed it.
@@cloudpoint0 Those statistics only show capacity, there is more to power generation than capacity and you missed my point. All power grids require a constant base generation of energy you can't be certain solar, or wind can do that therefore you often find coal plants are built and as energy demands increase it is coal that is produced. Also when you account for kWh/m^2 solar and wind is shameful. My final point the only reason nuclear power hasn't increase is unnecessary Radiophobia, radiation can be very bad but it is often overestimated, and the media sensationalise it; but meltdowns are rare, and a nuclear power plant is less likely to cause radioactive polution compared to coal (coal ash contains uranium, and thorium and that often escapes capture mechanism if they even have some)
I know. Multiply by 20% for solar output and 85% for nuclear output. Solar will still kill nuclear on an output basis, if nuclear doesn't kill us first. Batteries are falling in price so much now that intermittency has become a non-issue for utility-scale generators. Peak load is a more valuable first usage for dispatchable power (which nuclear isn't) but solar works for base load too when all peak load needs are satisfied.
Storage adds about a half cent a kWh, insignificant when solar is 4 to 5 cents a kWh and nuclear is 8 to 10 cents a kWh. The people that purchase power contracts don't account for power on a kWh/m^2 basis. They account for power on a cents/kWh basis. Nuclear energy's biggest problem is no private investor will touch it unless their financial risks are underwritten by a government. And government are mostly broke. Don't close what's already built where safe, but don't build new nuclear unless there is a compelling reason (you're building a huge new aluminum smelter industry near a new mine or something).
But my real point by showing capacity is to show the huge recent growth rate increase. And the above details probably explains why.
Have you thought about the required 5 to 10 km reduced usage exclusion zone around new reactors? And the actual plant land, several acres, that's taken out of use for about 60 years after decommissioning. That's not a small footprint. In the rare case of a serious accident, that footprint sometimes gets much bigger and for much longer.
To date, globally, there have been ~580 nuclear reactors that have operated for a cumulated total of 14 000 reactor years, with about 11 accidents of the magnitude of a full or partial core melt - this corresponds to failure rate of 11 x 100/580 = 2%. Thus, for a scale-up to the 15 000 reactors needed to phase out fossil fuels, we would have a major accident somewhere in the world every month. And I don't know that Uganda and the Philippines will be as careful or as lucky with their nuclear plants as advanced nations have been.
No one much cares if roofs, parking lots, deserts and other unusable land areas are covered in solar panels. Wind turbines have almost no footprint but they can't be placed too close together. Nothing's perfect.
Didnt they discover a safer nuclear element that produces no waste and can be shut off immediately in case of a meltdown
Are u insane??what about the toxic nuclear waste where are we gonna dispose it !!
When talking about the decay of co2 because if it were to be taken up by plants I feel it would take less time
Thorium reactor, i swear to god, awnser to every energy crisis
*Starts pouring ice into the oceans*
Fusion!
I've been generating ~200% of the energy I need from fusion for the last ~5 years. Paid for itself in ~4. It's AWESOME :D Go Solar!
i dont think were ever gonna crack fusion. the sun uses gravity as its energy source which is essentially a feature of the universe or in other words free energy. we have to put in all the energy we need ourselves and then be able to extract it at the same time in a way that generates more than what we put in
We cracked it decades ago... it's called Solar PV and it's great ;)
I know, but we are sooo inefficient. 99.999% Of the solar output is lost in space
Good thing the remaining 0.001% is ~1000000x more than we could ever use ;)
Thanks
New science channel? Subscribed!
"Before the industrial revolution..." The world was in a mini ice age prior to the industrial revolution. There have been numerous ice ages throughout human history followed by the planet reheating. Only because someone compares values from today with those from the 19th century, doesn't mean it's comparable. That's like saying, "I can't believe all the snow is gone. Just a few months ago I was wrapped to my neck in thick clothing but now I can run around in shorts," when comparing winter to summer.
We have technology to reduce carbon emissions but whenever those projects are intensified, so too does the resistance. Wind energy? "Protect the birds!" Dams? "Protect the eco system and fish life!" Nuclear energy? "The waste and risk of meltdown!" If we install street lighting to prevent accidents, other people still complain because of "light pollution".
There is no solution besides everyone just dying or becoming selfless and giving up on technology.
I'd like to invite you to our climate chamber. We will pump it full of Co2 with you in it while using a lamp as artificial sun. You will get the cold experience of no Co2 and the warm experience with a lot of Co2.
Or you can just Google why Co2 and other gasses makes the planet warmer.
DrunkenPumpkins Sure I will do that, but only if the room is full of plants and water with plankton.
finally someone who isn't stupid.
Sure no problem. But we will pump it all in at once and not 32 mg per day like a regular tree.
I'm not saying Co2 isn't bad and doesn't INCREASE the rise of temperature. I'm pointing out how people are showing comparisons that don't apply because the situations are not comparable due to changed circumstances. Comparing ice age to non ice age is stupid because just like in my previous example, you look at the last 100 years and you get a similar graphical rise in temperature that you would see going from winter to summer. We need to be comparing our data with that of more recent years.We need to figure out what the normal rise in temperature would have been or would be without additional human Co2. It would also be good if submarines would stop breaking through ice in the arctic region, thus breaking them apart and making these huge chunks of ice melt faster.
Well I still think we should stop emissions than not stopping it at all, I mean itâs better to let the earth warm naturally (which is slower) than speeding it up with factories
Why should we stop emissions? How many of us can survive without all of the things that fossil fuels make possible? Will you have a computer if we did not have cheap oil, coal, and gas? How do you think that we feed ourselves? Or move from one place to another? Wishing and hoping is nice but in the real world, we need to think.
@Sheri K
"Why? It may not help for thousands of years.
At that point, it will not matter."
That is the problem for the alarmists. They have gone so hyperbolic in their fearmongering that their own arguments indicate that there is no need for us to do anything. That is what we get when we allow charlatans to ignore science and play games with the data that shows residency time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and used they feedback mathematics methods borrowed from control theory without understanding that the proper application gives us equilibrium warming from a doubling of CO2 that is only 1.6 K rather than the 3.4 K mid-range estimate in the CMIP5 models. The game is over for the fake science that was behind the AGW myth. I wonder how long it will take for the NPR people to start focusing on what is true rather than what they are desperately hoping is true.
feel disturbed
That would be good for us
The middle east wouldn't be so rich
will be broke, as the global village will illegalize burning fossil fuels, so it's great MBS and s Arabia 's experimenting with 'seas of photovoltaic cells!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yay MBS, ! and leave those reporters alone !!!!
Is that alien Rick?
LMFAO
I have discovered a co2 absorbant technology.
I call it - a Tree
Exactly.
As a car guy I think this would be the end of cool loud exhaust notes of cars
Nothing for today
Don't forget - clearing all aerosol pollution would warm the planet. Since the smog is acting as a reflective sheet, it cools us a bit. Which means anthropogenic greenhouse effect is about 110 % of the observed warming. Wierd huh?
Daniel Henricson I think they forgot. Removing the aerosol masking effect would warm up the planet even faster.
Where did you get the 110% number? McPherson says it's more like 200% and we are doomed if we do and doomed if we don't.
Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and the US fourth national climate assessment. (Somewhere between 93 and 123%). 200 seems a bit much.
www.google.se/amp/s/www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/amp
Why don't we release a huge of amount of aerosol particules in the upper atmosphere to reduce the intensity of sunlight reaching us, so as to slightly decrease temperatures?
@@rallymaniac92 This is called Geoengineering and is probably unavoidable in the future. But it is like putting a bandaid on a shotgun wound. It might help a little, but it's not a long term solution. Also, it needs global regulations. Every country cant take action in their own hands, since the effects of geoengineering are global and might hurt other areas more than it helps. Tough future.
Your videos are so much informative and up to the point. I watched the video for an assignment but can't get over of watching it again and again.
AM HERE FOR A GOOD TIME NOT FOR A LONG TIME !!!
We could still get out the CO2 by machines (Climeworks and so on are working on it), trees and stuff
Yeah, he mentioned that option.
How are you gonna power those machines
@@jonathanodude6660 Only Renewables make sense.
We need to reduce our civilization's carbon output *and* plant hemp in huge quantities ... hemp is one of the fastest growing plants and would suck up that excess carbon dioxide ...
AvangionQ
Hemp will only ever be a small part of the solution. We need a multi pronged effort to combat the worst effects of global warming.
But your right if all cotton in clothing was substituted with hemp it would have a very positive effect on the environment as hemp requires a lot less water and pesticide to be grown.
Remember: we have the technology to live completely green TODAY!
hello thanks alot for the video. it is very appealing and meaningful. may i use some small parts for noncommercial use? Thank you in advance :)
Has anyone done a study on the effects of green energy in terms of absorbing a fraction of the global winds' kinetic energy and photosynthetic light?
For this to work, we need to unplug the hole in our atmosphere, so the gasses can get out. But we will also need a solution to immediately ''close'' it again, as soon as the job is done.
Thats not how stuff works...?
That's called farting
Just wondering: wouldn't stopping completely carbon emissions make the "debris cooling" solution viable?
What's that?
When you break the weather, it stays broken.
We need a unlimited power source for future in this century.
@Charles Clarke Okay.
So basically we messed up already and if we donât fix this we all die?
Frankly - no, earth will still be habitable. In some parts. But life will definitely get harder for everyone.
We've survived worse climate shifts, for instance: a meteor caused a sudden and rapid end to the ice age, leading to a 40ft increase in the sea levels and a 15 degree increase in global temperatures over night, as well as causing massive forest fires in N.america.
phys.org/news/2018-02-ice-age-human-witnessed-larger.html
Itâs called âdeus ex machinaâ
true
The oil companies would never alow this lol
So how does 5 gallons of fuel that weighs less than water at 10 lbs. per gallon manage to create 100 lbs of CO2. I feel they are pulling the wool over our eyes with their calculations.
You need to make a video about what everyone can do to reduce their personal greenhouse gas emissions
It is easy, stop using a phone, sell your TV, your microwave, your washing machine, your pc and of course your car and ride a bike to work.
+scho0rsci i think he means fart
eat less meat,
consider driving by train or by bus or with a bicycle
consume what you need (reduce food waste --> source of methane)
think about energy consumption of all your electrical devices and cut those down.
Scho0rschi
That's bollocks and you know it.
Iâll add to the list others have started:
Live closer to work and in a higher density place (NYC is lowest energy use per capita in the USA), only use LED bulbs, stop using clothes dryer and hang dry (this is a huge % of household energy), put all your electric devices (except modem and router) on switchable strips and leave off when not in use to eliminate vampire energy, live in a smaller dwelling because every cubic foot costs energy to heat and cool, wear more in Winter and turn your heater down, wear less and be strong while turning up your A/C, live in an old building pre 50s that has good passive design with crossbreeze enabling layout, consider installing geothermal or solar hot water, add insulation to your house and seal air leaks, replace windows (screw double hung style), do as much as possible locally, fly less, stay longer when you do fly to make it more worthwhile, sell all your cars youâll save enormous đ° too.
What is "Carbon Pollution"? - I never heard of it.
A made up term meant to demonize fossil fuels.
no immidiate gratification
I refuse
I have this miraculous advanced technology that sucks carbon from the air that you speak of.
Behold.... a tree!
*roll eyes*
Could You make a video about the issue that meat production makes up about 50% of the global emissions?
I thought it was 60%
They can't because that isn't correct, it is anywhere from 20-30% for food and forestry in total.
Whatever the percentage,
the fact of the matter is
that it's a large contributor
of green house gasses that
should be addressed sooner
rather than later!!
The methane produced by animal agriculture is definitely a contributor but remember that methane only has a short life (max 15 years) in the atmosphere. CO2 on the other hand lingers for millennia creating it's harm over vastly longer, and therefore, vastly greater time periods.
we do have one on beef and climate! check it out here: czcams.com/video/DD3sS743XHw/video.html
PSA: CO2 is not a pollutant.
James Mclean Excess is the issue.
I expected the "Stay curious" at the end and remembered it's the wrong channel...
Sounds like fusion
U mean... aliens gave us the sun?
Not everything can be run with solar panels
Well, if it can't be run with solar panels - should it be run at all?
@@VasilyKiryanov so you don't want to heat your house in winter?
Solar panels + batteries are enough to run a heater.
Also, in case you missed it, it's a joke.
@@ry8246 I don't see how that what meant to be a joke.
welp, if carbon was gone, then say good bye to the trees
Say goodbye to all life on Earth and in the seas. The ONLY food source of all life on Earth is CO2. Plants eat it directly. Animals have to either eat plants or animals that eat plants to get our food (carbon)
Not only the trees but say goodbye to us . Without CO2 we would die.
"clean limitless energy source"
We have already plenty of those, but they are not free to build. e.g. there are THOUSANDS of km magma under our feet - fueled by nuclear decay in the earth mantle.
I have read in an article that air conditioners emit a disproportionate amount of carbon emissions, but few people talk about it.
We have clean limitless energy sources already.
Ever heard of renewable energies?
I guess the reason we haven't started using that alot more yet is because it costs money. and you know how politicians just absolutely love money
@@LimaGlide well, I guess they think that it's too expensive then, despite the faxs
@@LimaGlide no it's fine I undertsnad
Understand*
But turbines and solar panels are not really renewable, doooh.
Sadly, this is far from reality.......
There's also this thing that is called an ending ice age Wich we are in so.... Also it'll cool down again it has before
You're confused.
Oh man this is much worse than I tought...
Calmer before industrial revolution? Citation required
Cult dogma needs no evidence.
Weather-related damage tripled in the last 25 years.
@@VasilyKiryanov adjusted for GDP, probably not. Temperature fluctuations were much more violent pre-industrial era. goo.gl/images/qkVCj5
The climate has always being changing, and will continue to change.
right, but we are altering it
@@andrewapurcell no were not. how so? only thing alternating it is the sun. We had global freezing back in the 60s. now its global warming. haha.
@@MasterEggroll the overwhelming facts says other wise, i'm not going to argue with someone that's not in line with facts and for some reason thinking that you know more than most scientists. Its ''we're'' by the way.
@@MasterEggroll if that's what you believe.
It takes millions of years for it to change, we are doing it in years.
That alien was named Alvin Weinberg and the energy source is called the molten salt reactor
impossible to do that over night