Why We Can’t Just Stop Oil
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 03. 2024
- Play War Thunder today for free at playwt.link/economicsexplained and get your starting bonus of the exclusive vehicle decorator ‘Eagle of Valor’ plus 100,000 Silver Lions and 7 Days of Premium Account access.
Oil and GDP are closely linked together, with the more oil consumed by a country generally meaning the higher the GDP of that country. With that said, energy costs of solar, wind and other technologies have come down substantially in recent decades meaning that "clean" solar power is actually one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity over its lifespan. So why haven't we switched completely over to solar? Well, it's not that easy.
This video was made possible by our Patreon community! ❤️
See new videos early, participate in exclusive Q&As, and more!
➡️ / economicsexplained
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Check out our other channels ▶️
Epic Economics @EconomicsIsEpic
Context Matters @Context.Matters
And our Language Channels →
WirtschaftsWissen (GER) - / @wirtschafts-wissen
L'Économie Expliquée (FRE) - / @economie-expliquee
Economia Explicada (POR) - / @economia_explicada
Economía Explicada (SPA) - / @economia-explicada
اقتصاد العالم (AR) - / @aqtisadalealam
経済会話 (JP) - / @keizaikaiwa
✉️ Business Enquiries → hello@economicsexplained.com
🎧 Listen to EE on Spotify! 👉 open.spotify.com/show/5TFVUEJ...
Also on Apple Podcasts or anywhere else you listen!
#EconomicsExplained #warthunder #oilandgas
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
ECONOMICS EXPLAINED IS MADE POSSIBLE BY OUR PATREON COMMUNITY 👊🙏
Support EE by becoming a Patron today! 👉 / economicsexplained
👑 ROYALTY CLASS 👑
Juan Benet
UPPER CLASS
Valkmit, Randall, Charles Youngs, Jeromy Johnson.
UPPER MIDDLE CLASS
Ernest Hua, Michael Wakim, Pineapples&bricks, Robert Abraham, Peter Wesselius, Michael Ling, Frank Soltero, David Poliakoff, Jay Eno, Sophie G, Brett Jubinville, Anthony Roberts, jill hoffman, Nathan Ngumi, JKH, Post Apocalyptic In Missouri, Laor Glukhovsky, Forodon, Paul Ashworth, Wendover Productions, Andrew Harrison, Shane Wailes, Igor Bazarny
MIDDLE CLASS
Per von Zweigbergk, Malleus Flavus, Backartoffel, Andy Giesen, Christopher Kastensmidt, Aryan, William Sherlock, Gerhardus, Derrick Yowell, BUBBA CONWAY, Chris, Brian, Vladimir Zotov, Seth, Dragan Alexandru, Jason, Jamie Costello, Leah Klearman, Klaus Clemens, Ps0Fa, Abel, Randall Sylvia, Eric Slimko, Empyre18, Brian Jackson, Istvan P, Kieran VR, Leonid Sorokoumov, Thomas Davenport, Nicholas Luchetta, Kim Brand, Ted Marcy, John Issitt, Joe Ryan, Patrick Staight, Wees Kendall, Shane Guthrie, Karan Mehta, roGER, Randy Cleary, Arjan, Liubov Zvereva, Michael D. Hall, Long Phan, Craig Mews, Kent Klatchuk, Roman~1, Chris Hawkins, Wesley Fite, David McIlveen, Anthony, Arend Peter Castelein, Daniel Alberto Vázquez Rodríguez, Kamil Sicinski, Dodd Willingham, Leo Vassershteyn, How long can a profile name be... this long... Wow, this is longer than I would have expected. Good lord, the letters! Secunda!, Michael Kürbis, Hugh Harris, David W., Dar H, Will, Kheng Lai Tan, David Taylor, Scott Greenwood, Jane Walerud, Zachary Demko, Michael Wolff, Siegfried Eggl, PM, Jack Annear, michael, Franklin, Trevor, Marcel Roquette, Daniel Hall, Connor Costello, John D Tyler, Petronio Coelho, Kevin MacIntyre, Travis Thompson, Matthew Eggleston, Kenneth Lum, Andrew Vinnichenko, Zachary Kasow, Johannes, Reuben Field, Nigel Pauli, Jacob, AB3, Matt McKee, Victor T., John C, Rimvydas, John Downie, Donald Wedington, Demo sthenes, Ed, Hayden van Reyswoud.
The Economic Explained team uses Statista for conducting our research. Check out their CZcams channel: / @statistaofficial
![[Vowel]물고기는 물에서 살아야 해🐟🤣Fish have to live in the water #funny](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3G9MH063Cx4/mqdefault.jpg)
Play War Thunder today for free at playwt.link/economicsexplained and get your starting bonus of the exclusive vehicle decorator ‘Eagle of Valor’ plus 100,000 Silver Lions and 7 Days of Premium Account access.
How one day ago
false advertisement. you say war thunder tanks and jets dont use any fosille fuel, but that implies that my pc doesnt use electricity generated by coal, which it does
please stop whining. #JSO
At least it isn't Better Help this time (I'm not sure but I think EE has been sponsored by them in the past.)
No
The spice must flow
Wish they’d included the Spacing Guild in Part 2 a bit more. Would have made the plot make more sense.
@SnorriTheLlama I agree. Tbh I felt they made too many changes, the visuals were incredible but the story and characters were lacking compared to the books
DMT is the melange
The spice melange. 😵💫
@@futureprimitive7465spice gives users a longer lifespan.... 😂
Finally, we will put fossil fuels on the economics explained national leaderboard 1:38
is it just me or War Thunder has been sponsoring way too many channels? even non gaming videos can and will be sponsored by Gaijin
it's the new Raid shadow legends
Demographics and trying to reach new players who might be interested and will spend a little money. F Gaijin tho
Almost no Variable costs for each new customer makes it feasible to advertise to everyone
But the fact that you see the sponsorships everywhere shows just how well they have their demographic pegged.
It’s successful and safe for CZcamsrs why not
There is a very high chance that the servers your virtual tanks exist within are powered by electricity generated by fossil fuels... so they do in fact use fuel in this case.
most Serverfarms are powered by fossil fuels (coal/Gas with Oil as generators for Backup power) and in gigantic quantites.
AWS EC2 US-EAST is 100% powered by Coal, Duke Power to be specific as the whole state of Virginia is run by them. Check what the powerplant is closest to the serverfarm and you get a very clear image of what kind of power is used! Don't fall for the Greenwashing of Renewable Power usage of Datacenters if hosted next to a Fossil Fuel, that is mostly a distraction to make the company look better than they are.
Readers should search for "carbon emissions from data centers" to get an idea of how much emissions they actually have.
Fun fact: the average Google search produces 1-10 grams of CO2
@@austinbaccusand the average AI query to Google’s Gemini or Microsoft’s chatgpt?
as if...tanks in real life aren't already running on fossil fuels mostly ?
I was on a road trip on a 2 lane country highway and the semis were taking up the road.
One truck had a bumper sticker that said “HATE TRUCKS?! QUIT BUYING S💩T!”
Oh, you've been to the country. Could you please tell those in the city what goes on there. I'm sure they'd be fascinated.
Based.
Reduce consumption is a much better way to reduce emissions than improving consumption. Technically the bumper sticker has a great message.
Australia’s new company Janus can convert HUGE 100 ton (or more!) trucks into full EV’s. Tesla's 40 ton trucks are good for driving within Australian cities, but at 40 tons are a little small for our 1000 km intercity highway routes that often use big 100 ton road-trains.. Instead of trying to “megacharge” the truck battery, Janus is a battery swap system. A guy on a forklift swaps the battery in a minute! This is more convenient for the driver if he’s not on his half hour break and needs a charge. It also means the warehouse can take their time charging the batteries. This is less stress on the batteries, and less stress on the local grid. Indeed during the day they can run 10 trucks from solar on the warehouse roof alone! The convert old diesel trucks. When one comes due for a major engine overhaul, many drivers are doing a Janus EV conversion instead. After a year they’ve recouped the costs. Then they save 60% on servicing fees and electricity is 1/3 the cost of diesel. Today the batteries can do 400 km before needing a swap. In the future, the truckie gets to enjoy new battery ranges and options as the batteries are automatically updated with the latest tech. These Janus trucks also get regenerative breaking, which slows the trucks going down hill while charging the batteries and avoiding wear and tear on the brake pads. The market is going to be SCREAMING for these trucks soon. It’s a thing of beauty - please watch the "Fully charged" 15 minute special. czcams.com/video/9eYLtPSf7PY/video.html
Facts and figures and latest truck conversion showroom www.januselectric.com.au/
Australia, by any chance?
Oil isn't just fuel. People don't grasp that nearly all synthetic products are petroleum-derived
But Isn't only burning petroleum to create energy a problem? I didn't think making things out of petroleum was such an issue.
@@TheFlawlessHost Maybe less so, but fossil fuel extraction and refining has significant environmental consequences even if the hydrocarbons don't end up as engine fuel. For those of us more concerned about habitat destruction and polluted water supplies than carbon emissions those steps are actually much more damaging than what comes out of your cars tailpipe.
84% of petroleum extracted is for fuel.
And turning that 16% into things that aren't CO2 is a-ok in my book (problems around plastics notwithstanding).
What you don’t seem to grasp is that it doesn’t have to be that way. It’s a choice. We can make plastics and naphtha from plants.
Which is another good reason to stop setting it on fire.
BTW, New York State did the same bonehead thing as Germany and shutdown Indian Point reactor. It apparently had another twenty years of life, and now it's a brownfield.
Classic policies by de-growther, suburban liberals. We had a similar situation with nuclear in California.
Germany shut down every reactor in the country..
Thank the Green Mafia, headed by the Godmother - Greta.
California is having similar problems with nuclear.
There's only one plant remaining. Rest were shut down.
Leaping before they look
regulating fast fashion is legit the lowest hanging fruit. The industry is excessively polluting, has marginal utility over traditional long term clothing , whole idea of the industry is built on neurolingiuistic programming of people to create demand for ever changing goods. One might even say it sucks money out of more fruitfuit efforts like research for cancer and renewables e.t.c things that can genuinely add real value.
...and it's what voters want so it's not going away
@@N.i.c.k.H ofc things are the way they are for a reason. However, fast fashion demands are largely driven by adverts and a push factor marketing. Simply regulating these ads and such would have a major impact in lowering the demand for such products
Telling millions of people they can't buy an Xbox because the government needs to pay big pharma for experimental cancer treatments only a few rich people can afford isn't going to go over too well.
Lot's of "environmentalism" is just the religious justification for class warfare. Like subsidizing EVs for the wealthy fad, when the common folks can't afford a house to plug those EVs into.
Low hanging fruit? I don't think so.
Trying to reform marketing will have massive regulatory precedence for all the other sectors. I'd imagine there will be a lot of pushback.
I also don't think countries would be too keen to competitively disadvantage their own industry, especially if it adds massive value like fast fashion.
@@one_victory6145 ofc pushback will come. But there is pushback in inaction as well. Regulating adverts is only a mild measure if anything. These regulations need to take place in countries with consumer sink and not the manufacturing/design countries which obviously won't agree to it. If anything it would boost the foreign reserves of such countries. As someone from a developing country it blows my mind that we ship 1000s of kgs of potatoes, enough to feed hundreds of homes for a month, for the price of one Balenciaga dress.
It would be nice if modern appliances would last longer, like the ones made decades ago. Then we wouldn't need to make so many of them.
Planned obsolescence is definitely a major issue.
Appliances cost more money in the past. We are obsessed with buying $600 fridges. Nobody walks into an appliance showroom and asks how repairable the appliances is they just look at the price, features and industrial design. It’s our fault not theirs. If people demanded high quality (more expensive) repairable products they would sell them. Having an iPad glued to a fridge to tell you when your yogurt is “expired” is a liability rather than a feature.
But that would negatively affect the economy!
-economics explained, probably.
just use the ones made decades ago
@@DMSparky they really should. When I purchase a vehicle I like it to have parts commonality.
It's generally cheaper to repair and maintain then.
I love how dunking on Germany is now a global sport
Because other places is antisemitic
Its because Germany is a powerful nation. It’s like how the USA gets dunked on welcome to the club
They’re extremely arrogant to the point of superiority syndrome AND conformist, shaming each other into some kind of central societal agreement, usually close to the leaders point of view. In other words, just a new expression of an old cultural trait.
.. And you can’t argue with them, because they believe themselves to be inherently logical. More so than other cultures. In their mind: German->Logical->Correct.
They are terrified of being individualistic however, which makes them vulnerable to shaming. That’s how one gets them rolling.
I feel like this video would have been better with more emphasis on China and the dichotomy that it is both the world's largest builder of new coal-fired capacity and also installed more renewables than the rest of the world combined in 2022. Also currently building out around 40-50% of all nuclear power plants currently under construction
this video generally leaves a lot to be desired
China knows its energy import requirements will be used against it in a potential conflict with the west. Hence it builds coal that it can easily source, but also builds renewables cos it knows it'll have to leave coal eventually and needs to have the alternative ready to go when the time comes for that. It eventually hopes to be as energy independent as the US is.
@@eblman5218The science has only become more certain since Exxon's own scientists predicted a 0.2°C temperature increase per decade nearly 50 years ago.
What refutes science:
• Better science
What DOESN'T refute science:
• Your feelings
• Your favorite politician
• Your religion
• Your half-baked opinion after watching two CZcams videos
@@jamesgrover2005 You forget that these are still theories. The ideas are always evolving and we are not 100% on everything with it. Being totally honest, I don't care about global warming. I care about cheaper stuff. Solar and wind power are cheaper and produce more energy than sources like oil and natural gas. That is why I support solar and wind power. Remove the politicalized climate change issues and turn it into a cheaper energy source solution. That supports climate change activists and the people without having the "climate change" stigma.
@@BBGOnYT plate tectonics is a theory, the theory of general relativity is.. a theory.
If one makes predictions that can be tested by experiment.
Or in the Exxon's scientist's case, predictions from their models have borne out to be very close to the present reality.
That's science.
Many people think that a scientific consensus refers to a large group of scientists who all agree that something is true. In reality, a scientific consensus is a large body of scientific studies that all agree with and support each other. The agreement among the scientists themselves is simply a by-product of the consistent.
@4:10 regular natural decomposition isn't a driver of climate change - it's just releasing carbon back into the carbon cycle that was generally taken out at most a decade or so ago. Hence, it's generally carbon neutral.
We can exchange increasing car driving for putting out forest fires. It doesn't matter how you want to phrase this, be it 'driver' or contributor.
@@theBear89451 bro wut? Im not sure what you're getting at here, but the point stands. The carbon from natural decomposition came from the atmosphere to begin with, so it doesn't affect the long term carbon balance of the atmosphere when it's released again. It's the carbon cycle, which is climate change 101.
@@theBear89451but forest fires are becoming more and more common
I’m allowed to decompose when I die? Thank god
@@nekhumonta That would only be an issue if there were a decrease in global biomass, but there is an increase, meaning plants are growing faster than they are burning.
The transportation figure cited in the beginning of the episode includes car payments, btw, which wouldn’t go away if we “just stopped oil”.
The real solution to car-related expenses is building better public transport, passenger rail, walkability and cycling infrastructure. Car dependence is killing us.
@@crowmob-yo6ry that works in the city, but I live in a really small town so I need to go to the bigger city 20 minutes away (by car) to get pretty much everything. The car has made small town America an awesome place to live. The other alternative to payments is simply paying cash for a vehicle that’s within your means.
@@expensivefreedom Newsflash: trains exist. Commuter trains are especially good for this very use case where you live up to 1h from a city and you need to get there somewhat regularly.
So a plumber can carry his oxy set, tools, ten lengths of pipe and a toilet on the train?
@@iustinianmihailfocsa I wouldn't trust the government with my transportation.
It's important to remember that, even though a lot of energy is used for our comfort, health and pleasure; there's a lot of energy used in creating unnecessary wasteful sh*t we do NOT need, with a clear planned obsolescence, for the sake of selling more.
@EconomicsExplained this should be pinned as it is the main driver behind the massive global supply chain and its resulting Carbon emissions!
If this was about saving the planet rather than controlling people, they would go after tthings like that as well as unnecessary private jets and shipping things from China across the world to the USA.
Exactly. People buy luxury goods literally every weekend, when they should be buying them every year or so. People are horrible at money, and only spend it on things hoping to feel happy and fill a void.
Exactly. The exclusively American obsession with driving is killing us. We also need more public transport, passenger rail, walkability and cycling infrastructure. Car dependence is killing us.
The problem is that nobody's qualified to define what's "wasteful sh*t" and what isn't.
Basically, build more nuclear and bring down the upfront construction curves through learning curves. Be more like France, less like Germany
They will still be megaprojects, learning curves don’t apply as much. Not even SMRs will be produced in large enough amounts to have large learning curve effects. Finance risks and regulations will be much more impactful.
Being more like France requires massive govt. investment. Contrary to the popular narrative, nuclear energy is in the doldrums not because of the pressure of green activists, but simply cos there's no longer much money in it. It requires huge upfront investment, takes too long to pay back, and when it finally does pay back isn't all that great returns either. So private investment in nuclear energy is low. Govts. don't want to foot the whole bill either, hence they look for private partnerships. Which they don't find. And no, small modular reactors are actually the LESS efficient way to do nuclear, so they're hardly a solution. They're attractive only cos they're cheap - at first. But the initial reactor also produces less. Once you start adding to it to reach the power generation of a large reactor, it ends up costing even more doing it that way than just building big to begin with.
french nuclear company is 80b € in debt and half the reactors need major maintenance
@@ArawnOfAnnwnChicken and egg? Isn’t much of the risk and cost due to government and lawsuits? It’s much like healthcare and defensive medicine. The US did a big FAFO on healthcare.
@mohammedsarker5756 No, you didn't listen. Build renewables but don't shut nuclear plants down unnecessarily.
Because nothing beats crude oil as a store of energy, in both density of volume and weight, in a reasonably easy and safe to handle and transport form.
Actually, diesel is better. Crude oil requires energy to refine to be useable and cleaned of sulfur. That energy comes from some of the products of refining being burned in furnaces and from addition of electricity and maybe natural gas.
Even if something can beat oil in those regards: said alternative needs to be cheap to produce and use on a large scale as well. Hence we can dream, but till something comes around that does it all we are bound to use oil, lots of oil.
@@richdobbs6595 plus diesel can be renewable. either sourced from new or used cooking oil, plants and algae (food and non-food). Also, diesel emit less CO2 but more NOx and soot though.
@@richdobbs6595 You might find that diesel is a bi-product that results from the process of distilling crude oil, I believe. Just like petrol and LPG or the Naphtha used to make fertilisers, plastics, pharmaceuticals, jet a1 etc. And the bitumen for roads and fuel oil for ships.
@@davidbrayshaw3529 As a previous refinery process engineer, I'm well aware of how diesel is produced. I'm sure your comment is very relevant to the point you are trying to make. It's just I don't follow it. I was directly replying to the OP. Are you arguing that gold ore is just as valuable as gold, because you can make gold from it????
The expenses of a US household on minute 0:33 shows that most of citizens have reached peak energy demand and live on austerity regime. Looks terrible only a part of citizens can reach the summary 5800 $/month.
The spice must flow.
I feel like we’re a couple videos like this from realizing degrowth is the only solution. Please keep doing them 😊
The segue into your spon was one of the smoothest and funniest I've seen. Kudos!
I wonder how many developing countries would rather have a billion dollars in coal plant revamps than a billion dollars in food aid?
One thing I feel has to be pointed out, is that while yes, a lot of these issues are currently locked behind separate complicated issues that need to be solved before any large scale fix can be implemented, not all are. For example, those large companies who produce such a high percentage of emissions have for a long time gotten away with essentially self reporting their emissions. Which of course means many have lied. And with modern technology we know this to be true but have simply not implemented this to the point of know how bad the problem is. Here the solution is simple, have someone else do the reporting and force companies to be more transparent. This is one of many example of issues that we have a solution for that today could be implemented which would force companies to take steps to reduce emissions. But many take the opinions you have raised and take them further to say "we can't point a finger at anyone, we don't have a good solution. And therefore we have to solve all of that before we do anything else". Which, and excuse my language here, is bullshit. We CAN make large changes today which will have a big impact. If instead of spreading doom and gloom about the issue, we instead set out minds together and focus on the issues we can fix, and begin working towards those we currently can't.
As pointed out in this video - The largest consumer of all, by a large margin, is in China. Good luck making them follow your ideas.
The solution will be technological, and will have better cost than current energy sources. Doing less or minor variations on existing technology isn’t going to cut it. The solution may be new energy sources, perhaps fusion from one of the dozens of companies working on fusion power, or perhaps extremely low cost energy storage. But either way, technology will be the answer. It always has been over the past x thousand years.
Another thing that needs to be pointed out is that consumers, particularly in developed countries, can consume less, and that's also a thing that can be done today. There's nothing wrong with regulation like you are suggesting, and holding companies accountable for inaccurate reporting is certainly worth pursuing. But many people take the options you have raised and take them further to simply be a shield against them ever having to do anything. The true answer is that we can, and should be addressing the problem at ALL LEVELS, simultaneously. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Mad respect for not trying to go into detail on environmental science as an economics channel. You really could’ve tried to wing it and possibly missed crucial pieces of such an argument. It’s nice to see someone admit their weaknesses even as a team.
Great video - price of electricity is way more complex than the mentioned costs. In a grid with several operators, the price of a MW is a very complex calculation, because the offer has to match the demand. On top of this, some power plants have to be paid just because they are there as a security back up.
When do we get a video about the electricity market? 😅
09:50... Nobody really wants to consume less stuff... I beg to differ. Personally, once I reached a certain age and about 15 years after having established my home and household, I felt that I was pretty much set. Now I make a concious effort to buy things bc I truly need them, not bc I want them. Getting older, one has to also consider all the junk one will leave behind once they "check out". My goal is to consume less and less, as the years move on.
in practice whether we decide something is a "need" is whether it is possible to guarantee it to most people. the high standards of "need" today would seem impossibly utopian hundreds of years ago, because of economic advancements that were the result of technology and overconsumption.
I'm a minimalist, and I'm happy with the extremely little things I possess. I have no void to fill by buying useless things like the latest iPhones.
On aggregate the claim is true though.
He was referring to broad demographics not individuals.
individuals opinion don't mean much
The argument about the production for consumption could have been handled more... delicately.
As it stands now it's dangerously close to "Our consumption is the sole problem" which is not true. Sure, less consumption means less emissions.
But it''s also true that we don't really have a say in how things are being produced. Switching to renewable energy for the energy consumed in the production process would cut a large chunk of the emissions.
Also differentiating between substinence and luxury emissions is an important aspect.
The emissions from the agriculture in India for example aren't comparable to the emissions for building gaming consoles.
It's definitely true, and you know it. If we stop consuming Temu sh*t today, half or more of factories in China would probably stop being operational. Most factories exist for luxury goods.
The answer is population decline. Less people trying to fill their voids by buying useless things hoping to be happy, less emissions. Less flights too.
Also "where does electricity come from" is a minor logistical wrinkle in that plan for them at the moment...
Not really. Petro-chems have no readily available alternatives in most manufacturing processes, so it's not that you don't have a say in how a good is produced, it's that nobody does. If you want the good, you need the petro-chems.
@@jacobtomasperez1719 I know what you mean and factoring your argument in preemptively I specified that I'm talking about energy, not raw materials here.
Hemp as a crop in the first place is amazing but its scrap can also be used to produce ethanol methanol and therefore anything you can make with crude oil but its renewable. Hemp is also the perfect cover crop so between harvests of food crops a hemp crop can restore the soil and be immensely productive
Thank you for clarity. ❤ 13:48 Also military defense expenditure goods?
Great to mention that it is not particularly to blame on the big corporations only. They are just producing what we want and what gives the biggest profit.
"When advanced economies have already benefited from taking advantage of the same energy sources" I didn't know they had solar panels during the industrial revolution in Europe.
Meanwhile, those same advanced aconomies developped all the science necessary to develop not only energy, but transports, computers, medicine, economics and so much more that allowed some countries to complete their industrial revolution in 50 years rather than 200. Most of those technologies are freely accessible by every country. Without authoritarianism an mismanagement, most of the world would be way past "inefficient power plants" already.
It's very wrong to pretend that emissions from factories in (e.g.) the UK in the 19th century benefits only people in the UK today.
Without going into detail for fear of upsetting the PC gods, I've had a very similar debate, albeit in different context. But without the energy used in this period and the technology developed and the data amassed, less developed nations would look a lot less developed than they do today.
You misunderstood. "same energy sources" refers to fossil fuels, especially coal. Because coal is cheap, developing economies often use it. When advanced economies criticize this however, the developing economy will rightfully point out that the advanced economy also used coal during their industrialization, and that it's hypocritical to say that they shouldn't use coal.
@@Victor-yv8ru Yes, that is what I am referring too. Solar and nuclear just didn't exist when Europe did its industrial revolution. And it couldn't. Industrial revolution was a prerequisite to the invention of other, cleaner energy resources. So it makes no sense to criticise them for using coal, it had to be this way.
And is it really true that coal energy in 1850 was cheaper than solar in 2024? Somehow that really doesn't seem obviously true.
@@MagicSerwynno, but to mantain coal power plants still is cheaper than solar
Maybe not one for EE but the energy storage situation seems like a field that needs to be explored more, especially using excess electrical power for pumping water in Hydro electric setups etc. Seems like Wind and Solar get bashed a lot (when the wind doesn't blow, cloudy days/at night etc) but quite often it's only because we aren't harnassing the energy when it's available to use later.
As an energy engineer student, storage is a massive area of research. The problem with hydro, and specifically pumped hydro is that it also has terrible ecological implications, and there is limited capacity to increase it without displacing thousands of people from their homes and destroying river habitats. Thermal solar is promising, but still requires a large land footprint, and the other major proposed energy storage is green hydrogen, but people are put off by it because they still associate it with the Hindenburg.
The moment you try to store energy you lose at least 20% of it. You also lose more the longer you store it.
Very good information
Watching this on an Australian VPN is so much better, you can hear the kangaroos in his backyard
This is something of a misconception. We're so far ahead of the game that we drive them instead of cars & fly emus interstate. We also increase their efficiency by making jetsons car noises.
100% renewable too @@kyneticist
I heard a left hook
Tldr: Individual countries are selfish.
4:17 'Natural decomposition' - is net zero because the pre-human forest is in equilibrium ( new growth balances decay ).
'Be the change you want in the world' is a sentence that took me many years to understand
I mean it's pretty simple, nearly everything we use on the daily is made out of petrochemicals of some form. We also are a long ways away from having another fuel source like batteries that come within even half the energy density as petrochemicals. Simply put there just isn't an equal or better option yet.
I don't think that nearly enough people have any idea as to how much dependence that they really have on fossil fuels just through sheer ignorance. Materials science should be taught in schools. At least stop oil demonstrators would then have the decency to turn up to demonstrations bare foot, with no rain coats and no back packs, to start with. That's if they had the energy, once they'd grown and harvested/hunted all of their food without the use of fossil fuels. There's not a teaspoon of waste that comes out of an oil refinery in a year. And we don't burn all of the products that we produce in our cars. Devastating ignorance.
You are making two quite different points here. No one who is suggesting we diminish our reliance on petroleum for fuel is suggesting there are alternatives to petrochemicals for making things. The long term (I emphasize long term) goal is to use renewable or nuclear electricity to power things to the extent possible while continuing to pump oil in order to make stuff - plastics, fibers etcetera - rather than burning it.
I guess the fact the infrastructure is already build for fossil fuels is some important that I hadnt really thought about
Yeah, but its something that Republicans in the US have considered for a while. >.
?@@UltimateDurzan
@@UltimateDurzan people keep saying Republicans this and that, but so have Democrats. The problems are the reality of just about everything is either directly or indirectly linked to fossil fuels. most medications, food production, utilities, everything is linked to fossil fuels. So far, there is no real alternatives that can quickly replace fossil fuels, without trillions of dollars, technological advancements (no, we arent there yet with the alternatives being tested), and sheer manpower.
@@UltimateDurzan Trust me, I like taking shots as Republicans as much as the next guy, but if you think Democrats don't support big oil you should really take a look into their campaign donation documents and PACs.
Engineers know that "the laws of physics don't care about your feelings"
Well explained
Do the figures for solar and wind include battery or alternate power sources for periods when they do not generate electricity? Usually they exclude this cost.
If you don’t include energy storage, solar is already the cheapest energy source available. Storage is very important tho. Can’t power a city at night on solar, not for a few years yet
@EconomicsExplained Regarding the "Peak oil" issue, you might want to look at work that has been done by The Shift Project. They detailed with reliable sources how the production of oil is gonna look like in the world (outside of Brasil and Canada) in the next decades and it is not looking good at all. They predict that it is likely to be halved in the next 20 years.
It will also get more expensive to extract as time goes on. We used all the low hanging fruit already, now we need ladders and gear to get the stuff higher up the tree.
People have been making that statement since the 1950s.
@@BatCaveOz There's really no disagreement that peak production will happen, among oil geologists and petroleum industry experts. That's just basic physics. The thing they can't agree on is when. The trouble is that there's not just geological and technological factors at play, but also economic ones. The cost of unconventional production, the cost of alternatives, interest rate on debts for funding new wells etc.
I suggest looking into the work of Arthur Berman for more.
@@LeviRealize Those estimates are always ignorant to the actual rate of adaptation within an industry. Commodity prices that were supposed to increase according to geologists have been decreasing on aggregate since the 1950s, as BatCaveOz said.
@@jacobtomasperez1719 If you only look at commodity prices this masks the unsustainable financial mechanisms used to make these gains possible. Have you looked into the change in ROI or EROI for various fossil fuels extraction and production since the 1950s too?
Why did you need the orange and the red category at 0:10 ?
Thank you, I was looking for this comment to like it 😅
14:30 is a brilliant summary of why the problem of an efficient transition to a global low emissions economy is so difficult.
A quick patch to help reduce this issue would be to push right to repair so we can keep goods operating and being useful for longer rather than having to replace them all the time. It should reduce the need for some new things. It's very hard to reduce fossil fuels unless we find a way to store a ton of energy, something like a solar panel that splits water and makes chemical fuel would be great since it can be directly used in existing infrastructure... fixing the storage problem.
Having worked in wind, solar, and oil & gas, I can confidently say, Nuclear is the only way.
I was a staunch opponent to nuclear in my youth. I'm no longer in my youth. Nuclear carries with it potential risks. Fossil fuelled thermal power is killing us. I'll take the risk.
@@davidbrayshaw3529 Doesn't matter either way. Nuclear isn't happening simply cos it's not a great investment. The industry is in the doldrums. The only way nuclear will happen is with massive public investment, like France had. That's not popular with govts., and if they need to cut spending or raise taxes for it then it won't be popular with people either.
@@ArawnOfAnnwnIt's pretty hard to argue with those points. That is the reality.
Praise Atom
@@ArawnOfAnnwn companies are trying to get around this massive startup cost by emplimenting small modular reactors. These reqctors produce smaller (yet still huge compared to any other single facility) to reduce costs and are made modular so that more could be added in the future. This would disperse the costs out and specific areas woukd only pay for what they need.
Its a start but public perception would have to change before snything substantial could be done.
I feel like nuclear is overregulated. Safety is key, true, but it's so incredibly harshly regulated that building a plant just takes way too long and costs way too much.
I mean realistically no one really wants to hear "Nuclear Safety Deregulated!"
Yeah, Sabine Hossenfelder made a video about that, which everyone should watch
Nuclear IS overregulated, it's a well-known point amongst energy policy analysts. A big reason why the new Georgia nuclear plant cost so much was that they had to redo the basic design three times after construction had already begun due to interference from the federal regulatory agency (I'm oversimplifying ofc).
No one wants a Homer Simpson overlooking operations there lol.
Honestly it's more than anything just under-subsidized, its basically impossible levels of risk for a private company to foot the cost of constructing and maintaining nuclear energy because the return on investment takes like 20 to 40 years to pay off. So when the government jumped ship to go chase magical 'green energy' we stopped building new reactors & the old reactors from the 1960s started slowly being shut down because they could no longer be maintained.
13:31 Where is the building in this clip? That is SO cool!🤩🤯
Thanks
We’ve been playing on easy mode this entire time and no one wants to go to medium
But that’s the maddening part. In order to secure “easy” oil we “only” have to fight wars and boil our planet with excessive GHG emissions. There is a collective lack of imagination to transition to energy self-sufficiency with wind, solar, nuclear, hydro and enhanced geothermal. “That’s the way we’ve always done it” has us stuck in hard mode for our energy.
Yeah but this is the "easy mode" kinda like eating your way towards a heart attack & an early death while rejecting any slightly digestion-resistant food source with fiber or getting up for exercise while gradually becoming trapped into a life in the sofa while gratuitously consuming 'cheap energy' processed carbs is "living on easy mode".
It's "easy", but the price is living in our own filth & becoming more & more hopelessly entrenched & dependent in maintaining the status quo.
It's incredibly hard to change - but the pain will be much worse if we don't. Time is running out, the economy, industry & society is an immense ship which will take generations to see through the results of taking a solid 90° turn. And there are cliffs on the horizon.
@@InnuendoXP O I’m with you, but that’s my point, we are stuck in a state of arrested development and unfortunately it’s going to take having the heart attack to change
@@CarFreeSegnitz Agreed, but it’s only hard for the people not making the decisions and that’s why nothing will change.
@@jerseygunz which means many, many people suffering & dying, and those people will generally not be those who profited most from all this. The wealthy & influential (& their descendents) who perpetuate this just to make the line on their assets sheets go up another notch or two will be very well insulated from the negative externalities of all this.
It's going to be yet another case of a privatisation of the profits, with an equitable socialised distribution of the costs. Unless there's something like some kind of carbon-based wealth tax which, is never going to be allowed to happen.
This video should really consider the economic impact of increased natural disasters & costs due to Climate Change, which are extraordinarily expensive.
No. Climate change is such a nebulous boogeyman you can blame everything and nothing on it. Environments change. You can never go home. Move north if you're more scared of dying of heatstroke than you are of hypothermia.
THIS. Future costs are just NOT taken into account and they should be
The problem is the data simply does not support there being increased natural disasters. The damage caused by natural disasters keeps going down year by year.
The world has considered those costs and has decided that those costs are less than the alternative (or at least less politically toxic)
India will be literally uninhabitable
Roof-top solars and other ways of dual use of land by use of solar panels can help in solving the issue of solar panels. This will also reduce the upfront costs and, hence, help in increasing the ROI for investment into solar panels.
As a chemical engineer working in the oil&gas industry, i found it to be a good video explaining the costs and benefits of fossil fuels, but it would be interesting to know the costs of a fully renewable energy grid (renewable plus batteries for energy storage) in order to compare it with the negative externalities of fossil fuels.
Full stop oil.
Next day: people are gonna be killing eachother over food, water, unable to charge their phone o pick up any signal. Literally nothing works, not even the eletrical grid.
Also, no medicines, clothes(synthetics), anything plastic-electronics, cars, airplanes
That sounds like the average day in California,
no wonder it sounds like such a great idea to them.
what's your solution to global warming then?
nothing. u lose oil, you lose the economy, u lose ur comfort. heck thing that processed ur food requires oil. global warming is inevitable@@donkey7921
@@donkey7921what is yours?
These charts don't factor in the fact they need 2x the cost to factor in storage if you want it to be reliable as thermal/nuclear. Also nuclear would be much cheaper with economies of scale as more were built
U also have to add grid costs which is 10€/MWh at 10% and 50€\MWh at 50-70% wind/pv and 1-3€\MWh for gas/coal/nuclear. You can not use LCOE to compare intermitten and non-intermittend power generation. Lazard also uses pure fictional projects, no data from real onces. OECD studie showed 45-97€\MWh LCOE for 3-10% discount rate for France for projects started after 2025 based on real build projects.
LCOE of wind/solar + batteries is like 1/3 that of nuclear. Yes, including the battery storage.
@@tHebUm18 yea na 🤦♂️. Were is your calculation? Not in the slightest. Germany just activated their coal plants and build up gas plants for fun ... u need at least a 30 day batterie storage ... you can figure out the rest ... tip google "world batterie production capacity" 😘
@@tHebUm18 idk where you are, but here in the states this is simply not true. I just did a research paper specifically here in California and from what I found my statement is true here.
Your mileage may vary
@@krautergarten4529 Lazard's 2023 LCOE report.
Yeah, capacity is still ramping up, doesn't make it not have the best LCOE for projects that can secure it.
No project needs anywhere need 30 days of storage.
I love all the pictures from Macau, waaaa we finally made it to a EE video >u
Petroleum is the Greatest gift, given to humanity. Billions would die if we did not have Petroleum.
In global grids, PV solar sells into the wholesale market at cheap rates. However consumers expect power 24/7 and therefore pay at the retail rates which is the PV solar cost plus the cost of FULL duplication of the PV solar capacity...which conceptually doubles the wholesale cost.
Analogy: Yes we have an EV but we need a second car (powered by hydrocarbons) to provide 24/7 transport capability. We also have incurred the extra costs of a second: storage space, insurance policy, registration, maintenance and operator training. Its cheaper to drive my EV. However its more expensive to create 24/7 transport capability when utilizing an EV.
If you spend some time researching grid auctions for power generation and standby capacity...it'll make an interesting episode.
for transport they are Trains, despite the view that most car drives have agsinst them are way cheaper if build on existing motorway land(flatten ground, requires less construction cost as flattening of land is very costly), taking away motorways and providing traintracks instead!
Fun fact disabled individuals on Ssi/D are not allowed to purchase newer vehicles. I believe the cap of is now 10 yr. I drive a 93 corolla if it breaks down I'm fucked because I'm now allowed to save, and only allowed 2000 in my account capped ever. The US government does not want to transfer from oil, when it mandates its most vulnerable residents to be poor and to drive gas running vehicles if they are able.
What is Ssi/D?
@@mynameisben123 Social Security Insurances and Disability Benefits
The term "fossil fuel" and assertion that they are not renewable assume that the mechanism of their creation is understood, which it is not. Alternative theories involve microbial production of non-biological chemicals.
I feel that the best way to remove fossil fuels from difficult industries like smelting, air/ship travel, and packaging is algae (or maybe cellulosic waste). Yes, I do know that algae doesn't have a great track record and faces many difficult challenges, but I have come up with ideas on how to solve some of them. Cellulose-based products will also be difficult, but I have some ideas with them as well.
great video and an opportunity to remind everyone that germany closed their nuclear power plants and now is running low on energy and has to reopen coal plants
There are no coal plants reopening and there is no shortage of energy as well. The shut down of nuclear power plants was planned a decade before. Please refrain from spreading misinformation in the future. You need to do better.
Sincerely a German
Germany burned the least amount of coal since 1959 in the year the last nuclear plants shut down..
Please do your research and look up the facts before saying something like 'has to reopen coal plants' and 'is now running low on energy'. That's just wrong.
They seem to currently have an incompentent government.
Why is this channel so good with context and context matter so bad? Do you guys use the same writers and researchers? Context matters the videos I've seen so far leaves out alot of the context part.
Single most logical video on this topic 👏👏
Nah
This is mostly from the perspective of fossil fuel companies
Genius video :)
Dear Economics Explained team ... please use more than one source ... The purpose of the LAZARD study was to compare conventional energy with "alternative energy technologies", particularly wind and solar PV, but without taking account of system costs. The nuclear costs estimated by Lazard were well above those in the IEA-NEA study based on existing projects, with well-referenced data. ... Don't just use the most pro renewable studie out there without a second look.
just saying
in the emission's heatmap its not developing countries like india,china that are the darkest
but USA,Canada,Australia
there is no reason they must produce as much emissions as they do
Judging by the size of their people, they actually have to consume a lot
The problems are cars.
Larger countries will always have higher transportation costs, especially when the land is less productive per acre and the distances between primary productive areas is high.
Wrong, China produces more emissions PER capita than my country New Zealand.
I am sick of being made guilty and my fellow countrymen being made poorer, due to this green BS.
lol yeah like China isn’t the single biggest polluter in the entire world
Something else you forgot to mention is how fossil fuels being a non-publix good makes them extremely profitable in a way solar panels aren't.
Sunlight is a public good everyone can use for energy. But it also means your investments don't go as far in checking your competitors in the market. If the best oil fields are yours other people have to go elsewhere. That increases their costs giving you an advantage.
Could someone please tell me what is "the most highlighted report' about the 100 most poluting companies on 3:36
You seem to miss the real reason why individual consumption can't in practice make a meaningful difference. Because consumers have a limited ability and patience for researching the products they buy. So a company using greenwashing will always outcompete a competitor who makes genuine improvements to their business practices.
Consumers are not rational and those 100 companies are very good at manipulating them.
Or you know... the fact that a majority of emissions is from industry & commercial transportation. Statisticians seem to conveniently leave that little tidbit out.
not to mention that often there simply aren't companies doing things in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way. especially true when there is a monopoly or oligopoly in the sector (which is the case in a lot of sectors). the problem is on the production side and regulations and other tools of government are required to make businesses compliant with the environmental standards we wish to obtain. political power is a lot more effective of a tool than buying power.
My grandma just cannot believe when I tell her petrol is made from remains of dead planktons.
Carboniferous period predates dinosaurs. By the time the dinosaurs came along, petrol building was all over.
Exactly which dinosaurs do you think were living and dying miles underneath the ground and seafloor lol? You are telling your grandma lies
thanks for the explanation guys, now delete them.
@@walkingcarpet420dinosaurs? You changing the subject?
One thing that can turn this on its head is robotics. The materials used in solar panels and lithium iron phosphate batteries are very abundant, but the manufacturing costs are pretty high. I can see companies deploying robots to match manufacturing costs in developing economies while localizing their supply chain.
If consumers quit buying the latest and greatest phones, TVs, or whatever else just because its new. You would see a reduction in energy consumption. Seriously don’t need a new phone every year, which some do.
Solar panel cost never seems to factor in the cost of land usage, battery backup, or end of life pollution. Cutting down trees to install panels is counterproductive. Panels should really only be installed on roofs, over roads, or parking lots. Has anyone ever figured out how many trees were cut down for panel installation?
I liked the perspective in the video, but i think there is one big point missing here. How much climate chnage will cost us for every 0.1 degree of global warming and that these costs are rising exponentially for every 0.1 degree more...
global warming is a lie buttercup, DUH !!!!
US dollar become a world dominant currency because of its status as a petrol dollar. Naturally US has a huge incentive not to move away from oil.
Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video
You are showing no evidence on the “because”. The political ideology, military power, rule of law, and regulations on investments had a lot to do with it.
This is ur political belief, that's all I have to say
@@gamefever90 That’s a rude reply. I wish people would stop using that. It’s a combination of rude moves rolled into one sentence. It’s not funny.
@@gamefever90you like to make assumptions, I see
Rooftop solar can help solve the issue of transmission loss as well as huge land requirements. This can make solar energy even cheaper than its fossil counterparts.
Industrial scale solar is already cheaper. It’s really just a matter of waiting a few years for car technology to advance.
I mean… waiting for battery tech to get to the point where the sun powers cities at night. The solar panels have already achieved cheapness. It’s all about energy storage now. Battery tech advancements.
@SigFigNewton Yes. The other issue of solar is the huge land requirement. So, this issue can be solved with the help of roof-top solar
@@hrushikeshavachat900 is the land requirement a big deal? Pretty sure that even taking land cost into account, industrial scale solar is cheap. It’s all about energy storage tech now. Power cities with sun at night
@SigFigNewton I completely agree with you that solar is cheaper than other forms of energy. But what is the issue if we make it cheaper by removing the requirement of large parcels of land. This will allow to increase the ROI to even greater levels. Also, rooftop solar being close to the end user lowers transmission losses as well.
Additionally, many countries like India are facing high scale land deficiency. The large-scale deployment of roof-top solar deployment will allow deploying large-scale solar capacity without touching the issue of land deficiency.
thx
9:50 It's not just that we don't WANT to consume less stuff, it's that we are encouraged and insulted to MAKE us consume more. As soon as the sales figures dip, what do you hear the news and companies say? Layoffs, unemployment, disaster.
Growth. It's all about growth.
Fair, I do happen to like things such as "food" and "water"
@@Coconut-219you can continue to have those actual necessities when the world consumes half as much stuff overall
War Thunder was the only sponsor recognition segment I didn’t skip cuz I actually found it interesting 😂
Your a bot controlled by war thunder.
I know you think your not but you are
@@ascra1693What are you talking about? We are definetly not bots controlled by war thunder, we are perfectly healthy normal human beings we all like doing the normal human things, like eating human food, drinking water, driving car, and playing war thunder!
@@ascra1693 lol nope, genuinely found it interesting. I can see why you'd think that was a bot's comment tho since it's in support of it.
1:44 drones are green and everyone and his cousin is moving to fuel efficient lethality.
It would be interesting to see a video about hydrogen vs. petrol/diesel in vehicles from an economics standpoint
In India, we have IPL (NFL of cricket), which is sponsored by an EV and Saudi Aramco
The duality of man
🇮🇳
I think you nailed it when you said counties like China pollute so much because people want more stuff and they are the ones making the things we want.
Imagine if we collaborated instead of competing so much. Imagine if we thought, “how good could we do it together?, Instead of, “we can do it better than you all can do it“
We can't completely stop oil dependency but we can diversify our energy needs so we can reduce dependency on oil and with rise of alternative energy sources such Biogas, bioCNG, Syngas, blue hydrogen, biodiesel and electric dependant engines and vehicles there is alot of hope for the future also the petro dollar will only affect countries who buy oil from Saudi Arabia. Countries who are buying oil from non Saudi sources are using alternative currencies such as Yuan like UAE did they offered the Yuan currency option to sanctioned and non western countries. Nuclear power is also back on the horizon so basically it can be anything at this point.
I enjoy the picture of people wearing polyester clothing and glasses holding anti oil signs
Eh they are just ignorant at where polyester comes from.
@@rimlogger7697 precisely why these people shouldn't have such a strongly held belief on a topic they evidently know nothing about.
"we should improve society somewhat"
"and yet you participate in it. curious! I am very smart"
Considering your point, it's most likely if they had an alternative that aligned with their beliefs and it was accessible, they would.
I'm not anti-oil. I'm poly-energy.
But your point fails because the reality is OIL IS ABOUT IN EVERYTHING and being a consumer in this market creates limitations that would make ANYONE A HYPOCRITE.
If you were very low income, or low income, it would be a considerable burden to purchase "organic clothing."
Fossil fuels are non-renewable, but there are plenty of renewable hydrocarbons: Bio-diesel, RNG, and SAF.
Many of these are only more expensive than fossil fuels because of the history of a century of subsidies to drill and mine fossils.
There may be ''plenty'' of renewable hydrocarbons but there's absolutely no way near the volume necessary to replace the current petroleum volume.
That chart looks very much like the beginning of a plateau or even a peak.
We wouldn't achieve any reduction. Our individual reduced consumption would put a downward pressure on prices which would encourage more consumption. You can't attack this problem on the demand side. It has to be addressed on the supply side.
Its completely feasible for rich countries to move away from oil relatively quickly through nuclear and renewables.
The thing that everyone forgets is that lots of countries with large populations are still developing. Who don't have the money, workers, etc to build nuclear power stations. Renewables are also expensive and take longer to break even. Oil and gas stations are cheap to build and break even.
So the amount of oil and gas being used by 2050 isn’t going to decline. Its going to significantly increase.
I didnt know there are nuclear powered cars in the market
It's not, even disregarding costs, nuclear plants take forever to build
@@rami8896 if you charge your renault zoe in paris, your car is nuclear powered
If the population actually declines, consumption will reduce because each person can only consume so much.
@@AwesomeHairo You accidentally just described the government's clean energy plan.
I am not with you on your interpretation that the companies "create goods only because we buy them". On the face of this it is indisputable yet this leaves out important details about how companies choose to make these products. Companies create repeat customers by creating goods that need to be regularly replaced, create addiction in the user, manipulation (gambling, sunk cost fallacy etc.) and changing models. These are not for the good of the user in fact it is to their detriment a lot of the time. In industry best practice is to plan and build in such a way where you can expand evolve and adapt. Imagine if your computer or phone was made to last and to be able to take on new hardware and software. Yet continually such things are made in the opposite direction, iPhones are a perfect example where initially one could go anywhere to fix it but then they started creating it so that you had to send it back or better yet phones were sent updates that made older models perform worse.
This is all to say companies make products to make more money, yes that requires a customers but they hold the power on how those products are made which dictates things such as reusability and thus has a greater influence on the products impact on the environment.
The rest of the video is good but that part is an issue that can be looked over and create a false idea of how consumer goods really works.
They're also ignoring the main point that when people make the argument that these companies should be forced to make changes they are basically acknowledging that they may have to pay more to do so and that is a sacrifice that needs to be made on a global scale. Voting with your wallet does not work for issues like this that are so massive and are a tragedy of the commons. Government intervention is required. It may not be popular but going to the source would do a million times more good than banning plastic straws.
This episode seems to rely on the argument that fossil fuels are cheap and easy to use and therefore it is ultimately the consumers fault they are used since we buy products made with them. But the consumer cannot be expected to know the full list of products used to create a good they buy or all the products used to create the equipment used to create the good, and on and on. This is ultimately a failure of global capitalism with poor/limited regulation and too much lobbying power, not a failure of the consumer.
“Only because we buy them” breaks down due to how much demand is entirely manufactured. Make them, and they hire people to convince us to buy them
It’s an argument that doesn’t acknowledge the immense wasted consumerism that our system entails
Easy to say but just not true. Removing all agency from the consumer by suggesting they were manipulated into making a purchase because it fits a worldview in which the consumer is pure and innocent and the corporation is the root of all evil, when the corporation is almost always a reflection of the consumer, and (as in the case of iphone obsolescence) often ends up with a sizeable lawsuit when they don't reflect the consumer.
"Thankfully your digital Tanks don't use any fossil fuels at all."
Highly unlikely, even if we ignore PC and server hardware manufacturing, given that both server and consumer power consumption is virtually guaranteed to not be 100% renewably sourced.
Curious about the comparison of total subsidies to produce fossil fuels vs renewables?
I just looked at it before and it’s roughly 1.2 trillion for both renewables and direct fossil fuel subsidies.
@ewanlee6337 Yeah but per megawatt hour, fossil fuel subsidies would be way less
Is that taking into account inflation adjusted subsidies for the past century?
@@brycehuff no it was for a single year. 2022 I believe, a quick Google search can give you more details.
@@dontcomply3976solar is the cheapest option for electricity. We’re waiting on energy storage tech but not actually trying hard for it.
You can replace them all with non-fossil fuel alternatives yes even shipping but it takes a lot of new infrastructure, one set of infrastructure out a new set of infrastructure in. The technology can make electric trucks right now. Container ships it would need to be hydrogen/ammonia which needs far far more hydrogen production that currently exists and the electrical production beyond that to split water. A large number of those ships are transporting oil and coal so you are reducing total traffic.
You don't need more land for solar panels you put them on roofs and over carparks, even as shade
Just on the electric truck issue - Electric trucks means more trucks (because they need battery space that is currently hauling goods) which means more congestion which means more road building which is not good. Electric trucks are heavier and therefore more damaging to roads hence more road repairs hence not good. Heavier trucks produce more brake particles hence more health problems hence not good. Electric trucks take longer to recharge hence lower utilisation hence more cost hence not good.
Doesn’t work earth doesn’t have enough resources to build enough green energy. Also you have to account for the share of fossil energy that will go away.
There is simply not enough cobalt in the world to create the batteries needed to move over.
@@DrakonPhD cobalt is already being replaced in batteries. Both Tesla and BYD the two largest EV makers use cobalt free Lithium iron phosphate batteries (LFP)
@@N.i.c.k.H depends on the design. You can for example use battery swapping. A smaller battery that is replaced whenever a truck driver takes a rest stop. Rather than having to have one battery do the whole trip. Some routes may be replaced by trains which can easily be electrical.
Renewables are definitely NOT cheaper than fossil fuels because 100% capacity of reliable generation still needs to be maintained. The countries with the greatest proportion of wind and solar also have the highest electricity prices.
Electric heaters & ovens still never really took off in the U.S. and that's even when most of our electricity was generated by gas powerplants. Nowdays the divide between gas and electric is actually only getting wider as the cost of electricity increases because of government mismanagement.
Incorrect, we will not run out of items, they just become more expensive to aquire. Coal and natural gas will last thosands of years based on current amounts that have already been identified. Work for one and you will soon find it is more economics verse quantities as thier are limitless quantities when you factor in coal conversion and tar sands to oil and gas. The more you know the better it gets for knowing that we will never leave cheaper energy. They just transfer to cheaper economies with less protections as costs rise based on govemrntal restrictions(taxes).
Would missiles and tanks be consumer goods?
I mean, if that is the case, I imagine that the percentage (if we were to make a pie chart of GDP) of consumer goods in the Russian economy must have increased drastically since January 2022, in such a way that that is why they appear not to have a remarkable contraction; when in reality it is that they're not investing in capital production.
Switzerland owes a good share of its gdp to heavy industry, you can't just fiddle with reality to make your analogies work..
20 -25%
Getting rid of fossil fuels means going back to living the way we did in 1750. No way around it.
Hydrocarbons*, not FF
Hyperbole. Do better.
War thunder sponsoring a video on procuring more fossil fuels is top tier irony