VFX Artist Reveals how Many Solar Panels are Needed to Power the ENTIRE World
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 09. 2021
- Don't miss SON OF A DUNGEON! Join OUR Exclusive Streaming Service ► www.corridordigital.com
Consider Subscribing ► bit.ly/Subscribe_Corridor_Crew
Watch Season 5 From Beginning ► bit.ly/Crew_Season_5
THIS EPISODE ►
Wren uses CGi to show you how many solar panels it would take to power the world!
FOLLOW ►
Instagram: bit.ly/_Corridor_Instagram
Sub-Reddit: bit.ly/_Corridor_Sub-Reddit
SUPPORT ►
Join Our Website: bit.ly/Crew_Membership
Buy Merch: bit.ly/Corridor_Store
OUR GEAR, SOFTWARE & PARTNERS ►
Our Go-To Gear: bhpho.to/3r0wEnt
Puget Systems Computers: bit.ly/PC_Puget_Workstations
ActionVFX: bit.ly/TheBest_ActionVFX
Cinema4D: bit.ly/Try_Cinema4D
Insydium: bit.ly/Insydium_Plugins
Boris FX - Mocha, Sapphire & Continuum: bit.ly/2Y0XLUX
Octane Render by OTOY: bit.ly/Octane_Wrender
Motion Captured with Xsens Suit: bit.ly/Xsens_MoCap_Suit
Reallusion: corridor.video/Reallusion_3Ds...
Unreal MegaGrant: bit.ly/Unreal_MegaGrant
MUSIC ►
Epidemic: bit.ly/Corridor_Music click this link for a free month! - Zábava
Everyone has bad misconception about nuclear energy yet it is one of the safest, clean and very energy efficient
One could say it's decades of Germany's withdrawal from nuclear that lead to Nordstream that lead to the current war. 😔
yes
Thorium Nuclear Reactors have been developed - in China.
@@dnickaroo3574 that good.
1 ton of Thorium can produce the same amount of energy as 3 500 000 (3.5 Million) tons of coal
This whole "environmental " bull is going to lead us straight to nuclear cause all the energy needed gonna need realistic solution.
Literally in the middle of writing a script in a similar line of thought. This was amazing Wren and love the message about engineering!
"in the middle" so like, three years or so?
Yo you are also here
Do it beter, and mention Fusion in it, and that the Solar panels in space are waaay beter then down on earth.
Thanks so much Brian! It’s always incredibly rewarding to get the approval of science communicators. It’s so dang hard to not talk about everything haha
Lol you got derek'd
The idea of putting solar panels above parking lots is actually genius
no the genius idea is to *unnexist* the atmosphere and let the stuff out(ik how smart)
@@rendycoyathat doesn’t make sense
@@rendycoya deleting th atmosphere will kill every life on earth
@@gamingwithanoob true because of the meteor and the sun’s radiation
@@stemmingtrain5188 also the fact that the atmosphere is what keeps the oxygen we breathe in place
Every sloped roof should be a solar roof, parking lots as shaded solar lots, even shaded walkways with solar would be amazing.
The issue is you actually need to maintain and even replace them every 3-15 years (depending on the quality. Chinese ones can hold out 3, 5 years at MAX.)
Lets be honest, If LA is incapable of filling a pothole in the middle of the road, they wont bother maintaining these panels.
@@Kronosfobi Nevermind the amount of money required for such a thing
that would be communism and that doesn't work because greedy old men want young women touch their old pp's @@wowplayer160
what furk said.@@Kronosfobi
@@Kronosfobithis is utter BS. Even those very bad solar panels made with non UV resistant backcoating only fail slowly after 10 years. With UV resistant backcoating it should last at least 25 years probably much longer, but we just don't know yet. And with glas back it should last indefinitely until the cells deteriorate enough to make it economically worth it to be replaced. Which is a quite long time at 0.5% deterioration per year.
Thank you so much everyone for watching! There are a thousand more things I would’ve loved to say and include in this video. There are so many clarifications and footnotes to include. I had an entire moment talking about the benefits of nuclear but as with everything else, it detracted too much from the point I was trying to make.
A large part of my struggle making this was figuring out what the point of this was. How can I simplify such a complicated scope of a topic into something that is easy to understand, correct, informative, and entertaining enough for people to stick around? It was hard. I hope I’ve done that.
Of course there are huge problems surrounding materials, toxicity, and emissions when it comes to the production of solar tech and lithium ion batteries. But these are just that… problems. We can solve them!! We WILL solve them!! I’m trying to inspire the right people who will help us discover new solutions.
I don’t anticipate changing anyone’s mind if they don’t believe in climate change. I’m hoping well reasoned folks who ARE interested in a better future see this and realize the simple fundamental realities of what’s POSSIBLE before getting lost in the weeds of the technical issues preventing us from getting there.
I want to never EVER again hear the phrase “solar is great but it’ll never beat coal”. No. I refuse to accept that. We can do this.
We indeed can!
Who’s cutting onions in here?
If you spent more time on this to put even more information, the video would be an hour long. However, it is great that you have made this in a really creative way because it leaves us a space to discuss :)
I believe I speak for everyone when I say: I will show up for any video you make on climate science, especially forward thinking technology.
This video is such a great way to do science communication. Please consider to add subtittles to it, because I would love to show this video to more people.
Thanks!
Wren: "We need more engineers"
Everyone: become a software engineer
Wren: "Hey, that's not how it works"
unless softeng can make someone see colors thru bioelectricity 👀
Well I am an astrophysicist, who worked in the last 20 years as an electronics engineer... and when I say that climate is mostly controlled by the Sun, and the solution is nuclear energy, the communist ideologues call me an idiot and a climate denier, and explain that they KNOW (because their cult leaders told them) that the future is renewable, humans are evil and shall be extinct, and that CO2 is the biggest danger ever.
"...we need more engineers..." I dont think so... you hate reality, therefore you hate natural sciences.
@@meleardil I mean, your not wrong as the climate is mostly shaped by the sun (due to heat being transferred from the sun to the earth). The problem is, as wren put it, "putting on too much blankets on the earth". The heat gets trapped and heats us to abnormal levels. And when you say we don't need more engineers, your a dumb ass. We always need more engineers, cus it ain't going to be me or you who figure shit out. You said you where a astrophysicist with 20 years of experience as anelectronics engineer, did any of your work relate to solar power or renewable energy? If so, could you perhaps link some of the papers you have written or tell me what things you worked on so I can see your credibility?
Won't be long and software will be writing itself... It's kind of a conundrum at the moment. That said, do what you can, what you want, what you must. Feel the hunger inside, hold on to your trust.
Becomes a CZcamsr.
Becomes a Twitch Streamer.
Becomes an Influencer.
Lets be real, these are the most desirable jobs among not all but a lot of kids. I mean I have seen smart aspiring doctors become twitch streamers instead because its cheaper and less stressful.
Engineers are superheroes!
That's a powerful conviction. I would thank you as an engineer for honoring the hard work we guys put to make a better world.
And like all super heroes, do NOT get paid well
Fun fact, in case nobody has mentioned it yet, but the "thing" at time stamp 11:56 is a cole excavator (a small one actually) and it is already running electric ;) Bagger 293 is the largest of those and has a direct line to the coal plant that it is feeding all the coal to.
so produce chemicals to produce clean energy, but the chemicals that get produced still ruin the air quality, makes sense
Why are we trying to marginally decrease coal emissions when we can shut down coal and move away from fossil fuels?
@@Project2457official Because we can't simply "shut down coal" and we are dealing with billions and billions of tons of greenhouse gases from coal. Even a 0.01% decrease is still a reduction of millions of tons.
We can't just shut down coal because we've already built a trillion dollars worth of coal reserves, mining equipment, dedicated transportation infrastructure (trains, trucks, etc), coal power plants, and the specialized labor that does all the mining, driving, and running of the plants themselves.
The trillion dollars of renewable energy infrastructure just isn't there yet, it needs time and investment. Even if we all universally agreed to get rid of fossil fuels right now we'd still need a decade or more to build all of the assets that coal and such already has, not to mention the actual tearing down of the existing coal assets. Large swaths of the country where coal is the majority or the only power option would be in perpetual blackout until renewable energy got built in their area, which again could take a decade.
I know it sucks but this shit takes time, the fossil fuels industry has had 150 years to build up their assets, renewables has had 30. We *are* shutting down coal and moving away from fossil fuels, it just takes decades to do so.
@@Project2457official Nobody takes into consideration the economic impact that shutting down coal has. Hundreds of thousands of people work in coal mines and would have nothing left if coal were to suddenly shut down. You're talking about something on the scale of genocide to put a sudden halt to an industry for the sake of putting a small dent into air pollution. Even if the US were to completely shut down all coal production and coal power plants, you still have China and India to consider and they're not going anywhere any time soon.
@@kliajesal4592 Not a small dent. Most emissions come from energy production, especially for electricity. You're buying into the fossil fuel lobbies narratives. We can slowly but steadily transition away from coal especially.
As a retired engineer who worked his entire 40 year career in the energy sector, I applaud your message at the end of video - we need more engineers. The biggest challenge young engineers will face is the safe storage of the large quantities of energy that have to be harvested when the sun is available, to cover when the sun isn't. To wrap your head around the magnitude of energy to be stored, consider that a typical 500 kV line from a power plant delivers enough energy to launch a Statue of Liberty into Low Earth Orbit, roughly every 20 minutes.
The only reason I support Tesla. They'll engineer good batteries. I can't buy their cars tho lol
Makes me wish I went into mechanical engineering or something, I just graduated as a computer scientist a few months ago and all I can do is code. Not sure how I can help.
Future engineer here. Best long term goal for energy is nuclear. High energy output. Proportional generation based on energy needs. Net 0 C02 emissions. Very safe (contrary to popular belief). I believe a leap into nuclear energy/research would create a big scientific boom into areas that need exploring.
@@DeadlyRainbowz243 I think a combo between mainly nuclear and solar would be ideal
Hi Neil, HS senior trying to decide. Which do you recommend, Mechanical or Electrical Engineering?
The visualization for nuclear assumes we continue to use the same type of reactors which are only able to use about 0.5% of mined uranium. Breeder reactors are able to use the 238 isotope, which enables them to use ALL of that uranium, including the "waste" from current plants. The waste alone is about a 1,000 year energy supply without mining a single additional ounce. Breeder reactors can also consume thorium which is 4x more common than uranium. All told, the Earth's minable supply of fertile nuclear material can last longer than the predicted lifespan of the sun. But of course, the limitation on solar was never the sun, but the materials and waste from manufacturing the panels and the storage. Solar is doable, but nuclear will do it with at least an order of magnitude less of land, material, waste, and it can be ramped up faster.
That's kinda what I thought (although I didn't remember the details on how much of it we have), not to mention, by the time we'd have any issues with available nuclear material, we'd likely be able to bring megatons to Earth from asteroids and/or the moon if we really needed it.
I'm not opposed to solar, and maybe we'll be able to make solar power plausible some day, but I think if we want to actually reduce CO2 emissions, nuclear will do it faster, cheaper and with less side effects on the environment, all while giving us more energy for our civilizations to work with, which would increase the standard of living for people. Then if we needed to someday transition into Solar or direct Fusion we could do that.
Nuclear produces so much energy for very little impact environmentally. I don't know how to convince people that nuclear is a lot safer today than when it first began.
The idea of radiation poisoning is horrifying. You don't know you are going to die because of that contaminated breath two minutes ago.
I believe nuclear is the way we need to go, I just don't know how to convince the world it's safer than the coal we use now
@@kyle18934 Comparing it to coal is an easy one if people will listen at all to statistics. Forgetting about climate change for a moment, the direct deaths from particulate and heavy-metal pollution caused by coal are approximately 1 million per year. Depending on who you believe about Chernobyl, that's 1 Chernobyl a month or 1 Chernobyl an hour. If they've ever worried about mercury in fish, coal is where the largest portion of that mercury came from.
Here's a fun one. Because coal is fundamentally a rock, it's got traces of other materials in it (hence the Mercury and arsenic etc). But there's also some uranium and thorium in there. Some loads of coal have more energy in uranium and thorium, than they do in the coal itself. If coal plants were regulated like nuclear, the NRC would emergency-shutdown all of them overnight for the radioactive material emissions alone.
...and you didnt even mentioned how safe they are and how promising small modular reactor are.
Good luck with sun and wind with shifting climates like we're having right now, worse and worse each year.
Nuclear mainly + Renewables. That's the only way to salvation till (and if) fusion will be viable.
@@jakkonexus1166 Frankly I'm not sure what fusion is supposed to solve. Thorium costs negative money, and even with the current inefficient cycle, fuel represents about 5% of the cost for fission. Fusion power would probably require a ton of super high energy tritium and deuterium, which are famously hard to contain (they do fun things like pass through solid steel). If the design of the fusion plant itself proves to be considerably cheaper, then we've got something. But there's no way to know if that's going to be the case, and several cheeky leaky isotopes tell me it probably won't be. I think fission is where it's gonna be at for a very long time.
You remind me of the shows on Discovery that I grew up with, Wren. Thank you for doing these. You're the man.
This is such an awesome video! I thought the spheres of resources and the flow diagrams were a really nice way to visualize things. You really touched on a lot too in a video that could’ve been so simple and mediocre, great work! I think the only thing I feel was missing is how to make solar panels and batteries/where to get the materials/availability of such materials etc. Part 2?…👀
wren just casually went by the fact he took 3 YEARS to write this script
And he still couldn't be totally honest about solar, even intentionally glossing over nuclear - the superior option. Cost is incredibly relevant, because people won't mine lithium, nickel, and other precious metals and minerals for free, nor will they refine them for free, they won't transport them for free, they won't make the factories and refineries or even the vehicles for free, nor should they. The scale he's calling for is colossal, and the cost would be astronomical. No way he spent 3 years researching this and didn't realize going full solar is pure fantasy. Doesn't matter if he tries to belittle the cost argument, because cost IS relevant. I also don't appreciate him dodging the cost argument by asking what the cost would be to not go solar. That has some real forced labor camp undertones to it, and I don't know about y'all, but as a libertarian (who'd never shoot up a super expensive solar panel, because why would I?), I'm VERY against forced labor camps, and violations of human rights in general.
He's had 3 years to write that script. Let's hear how we produce these billions of solar panels and force them on the world WITHOUT violating human rights. This "ends justify the means" crap is incredibly scary, if you're a student of history. This was the first video they made I had to give a thumbs down to.
@@Gottaculat cost is important, I completely agree, but not the whole story. The issue with this topic is that the cost decreases the more we invest in it. Saying it's 5 trillion now will only scare people who are uneducated in the area. That's why 50% of people only take a stance against climate change and the others are complacent. It's hard to educate in a field that has so many complexities tied to it. If you want metrics for my numbers I can provide. The US energy department also submits papers arguing for my point here.
@@Gottaculat I think you're completely missing the point. Obviously cost is a huge thing to consider, but wasn't a focus of the message I was trying to convey. My entire point is that there's a huge amount of solar energy available that we're simply not using. The "how" we use it was less important to me because it's constantly evolving. Technology is constantly developing better and more efficienty ways to harness solar energy. I had an entire love letter written about Nuclear energy but it detracted from the message too much so I cut it. Did you not watch the part where I said "how many solar panels could power the world" isn't a good way of thinking? It's not about the solar panels!!! It's about free energy!
Also, I didn't take 3 years to write this video. I just started writing it 3 years ago. Most of that time was researching and going down rabbit holes to see if there were interesting nuggest of information I could visualize.
Before the texas snowstorm caused power outages, okay that tracks.
"It's like harnessing the happiness of a child when you give them ice cream."
*The Matrix robots start furiously scribbling into their notebook*
I had to think of Monsters Inc
@@ThindiGee same
Write that down! WRITE THAT DOWN!!
@@tigmonx Charles the French
Matrix is so funny. They have fusion reactors but they just really hate humans 😂
Nuclear power is clean, and semi-renewable
One good batters that we have is water and dams… a lot of European country (especially Switzerland) us this technique
Water is brought up and stored in dams with the excess energy during the day and electricity is regenerated when it is needed by bringing the water down in turbines
the thing is, that at least for the first 40% or so the demand for storage capacity goes down with the build up of solar Energy.
You know you’re selling yourself short referring to yourself simply as “VFX artist”, right? That’s like Mark Rober calling himself “guy who makes cool toys in his shed”.
Easily the best video I’ve ever seen about climate change, guys. Keep it up!
He's not a VFX artist ?
@@addictedtofamilyguy7627 read the video title? Watch some of their other videos?
@@GrandmasterofWin I know he's a VFX artist, and I don't know what I said that implied I thought otherwise, I'm just saying that doesn't do justice to all of his talent and expertise. I wouldn't care what someone who just plays with CGI all day and doesn't know anything else has to say about climate change, or any of the other educational topics he covers, but he is so fun and trustworthy to watch because he knows what he's talking about with his background in physics and all. I mean, Mark Rober IS a guy who plays with cool toys he makes in his shed, that's just a massive understatement of his abilities. How about you read the comment twice before replying?
@@justanothervoice2538 hey bud... I didn't @ you. I replied to the guy before me. I was on your side. That makes your last sentence kinda ironic lol
@@GrandmasterofWin Oops, I'm so sorry! Well, not for the first time, I've made myself look like an idiot misunderstanding someone's intent in a comment section. What can I say, it's a gift!
You outdid yourself with this one, Wren. Science communication videos should be like this. Please, keep them coming.
Love the ending! I would add consideration of Kennedy's famous words "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we’re willing to accept. One we are unwilling to postpone." The context for these words (the whole speech) is worth reading of course. But it echos your parting sentiment. There will always be those who do not want change, for myriad reasons. Who point out the difficulties. Their perspective and the things they point are are important, because they reveal the obstacles that we need to overcome. But it should not stop us, rather it should help to define the tactics we use to meet our strategic goals of adopting renewable energies. One of these key obstacles is of course storage, and I was pleased that you embraced a wide concept for power storage. Additionally, a reasonable future for renewable power will need to incorporate decentralization of power generation and storage - which means overcoming a lot of barriers that are not in the engineering realm, rather are economic and political. But ending with Gandalf's message was truly inspirational. Peace! JW
Thank you for getting me back into science
It's stuff like these that makes me realize why I loved science as a kid
We just need 1.5mil windmills to power the world. windmills aren’t actually harmful to the environment that rumor was made by the fossil fuel industry so they can make more money
Incredible work, Wren! All those sleepless nights paid off 👏
Hello verified person.
This is straight up earth getting it's revenge for what humans have been doing to it or it is teaching us humans a lesson.
Bro 666th like
Los Angeles; a relatively flat city with temperate weather all year round. The perfect place for bikes and pedestrians. So, of course, its residents spend their entire lives driving and stuck in traffic.
La is literally most disgusting place in California. Actually just any major city in Cali is nasty
LA is stupid hot in the summer.
But the bigger issue is the existing infrastructure was designed with cars in mind. Breaking it down and remodeling it would be incredibly expensive, which is why no one really wants to attempt it
Murica
Largely due to insistence people work out of offices and the car manufacturing and oil industry. Read up on LA's abandoned subway...
Is climate change real? Yes. Is it man made? No. Should we do what we can to produce energy as cleanly as possible? Yes.
I truly love your channel. Keep doing the best work.
Such creative videos you’ve on this channel. Just subscribed!
Officially the first viewer of any video on this channel.
I’ve never witnessed such awesome editing as this one.
Following your channel from the last two years, interesting content!
You’re working so hard, may all your wishes come true.
Congratulations on your first 10K followers, may you reach 100K soon.
Whoever is reading this, never give up. God is with you.
When watching your videos, I accidentally hit ‘like’ and never knew when.
The moment you came here is at 05:17.
Love this video, I think I’ve watched it four times.
Honestly, your humor is something else. If I ever become a big youtuber, I wanna be like you. Great job! You earned a subscriber, a like, and definetly recommendations to friends (To be fair, you deserve MUCH MUCH more than 1 subscriber).
Wren: We can do it!
Kurzgesagt: Uhhhh.. Hold my cartoon birb..
We can do it by voting
Kurzgesagt: Yesn't
Construction major here! I love the concept of solar panels everywhere, on paper it sounds like a fantastic idea. But in execution there are three glaring problems: Solar panels have laughably short lifespans, farms are bad for ecosystems, and the reason why solar farms are built.
As it currently stands, good industrial panels only last for maybe 25 years, and that's assuming that the panel isn't defective or doesn't get damaged during its deployment. Outside of their metal components, panels are not able to by recycled, and their manufacturing process is far from green.
In order to build a solar farm over a large area, you have to displace all of the local wildlife. Additionally, farms in SoCal and Arizona generate so much heat above them that flocks of birds have been known to spontaneously combust while flying over. Oddly enough, solar farms are more efficient in northern climates where you are able to use bifacial panels thanks to lush ground coverings and snow. This is really interesting because it shows how few people understand how solar works, because the vast majority of farms are constructed in deserts where you lose anywhere from 8-15% efficiency than if you constructed a farm in a lush and colder environment.
Lastly, solar farms are built for one reason only: money. Land owners have discovered that you can make a lot of money by selling solar power and get huge subsidies and tax breaks for constructing them. Solar has an incredibly fast turnaround for making profit, and again, it's just a 25 year scheme for the landowners as they wait to find even more profitable investments.
I love solar on paper. I love solar as a supplemental energy source in urban environments, such as over parking lots or on buildings. But it's not the solution. With how delicate they are and how unclean the manufacturing process and end of life plan, it's literally like patching an oil spill with gold foil. Just like how electric cars aren't the environmental solution (trains are), our best hope for the future, until we achieve true fusion, is nuclear. It is the cleanest, safest, and most efficient energy source we have. And the sensationalism of nuclear accidents has generated unwarranted fear. Chernobyl was the result of Soviet lies. Fukushima (which did not kill a single person) was the result of a for-profit company actively choosing to not follow safety measures recommended to them in the 90's. The real reason why we haven't gone fully nuclear in this country is because it isn't profitable in the short term. Because of all the measures we take to ensure that nuclear plants are 100% safe, they are incredibly expensive for investors. But the environmental and energy returns are completely worth it. We may not have a solution for permanent nuclear waste storage, but I'll take carefully monitored temporary storage any day over landfills full of millions of dead panels.
I'm working on my bachelor's in Geosciences with a concentration on natural resources and conservation.
You forgot to mention the resources required to create solar panels are also limited. Just because solar energy is very abundant doesn't mean the materials needed to create a panel are. Food for thought. it takes 4 tons of coal (and also additional wood charcoal often harvested illegally from rainforests and sold to China) to create 1 ton of solar grade silicon ore. That doesn't even include the energy required to slice the ore into wafers, make the other components, ship the panels to their destinations, and set them up. A good portion of the increased pollution generated by factories in China comes from making cheap electronics. A similar ore (with a higher purity) is used in the majority of semiconductors inside of computer chips for just about all of our modern electronics.
Some panels contain chemicals such as cadmium and lead which can leech into the soil contaminating the land and waterways although most of them don't have a high enough concentration to be a real hazard. Note I said most, not all and as you mentioned, the panels degrade over time which means more of their components will leech chemicals into the soil as they begin to decompose regardless if it is while they are still in use or once they are disposed of however they decide to tackle that issue. That's why they are considered hazardous waste.
Then remember all the talk about heat. Too much heat destroys electronics. Some types of solar farms can require up to a million gallons of water to keep the panels clean enough to absorb solar energy and cool enough to prevent damage. Many of those farms are as he said... in the desert. That kind of water isn't available in the desert, so it has to be taken from another location. Another bad part of placing them in the desert is that events such as sandstorms can cause microabrasions on the panels which will reduce their overall efficiency over a fairly short period of time.
All of that water needed for some systems makes me wonder if solar panels that are meant to be a solution might actually be responsible for more frequent droughts and forest fires than people realize (although poor land management and lack of controlled burns are also contributing to forest fires in some areas but that's a separate subject).
As for Nuclear, I agree it is one of the best solutions we have so far, the problem is that outdated policies prevent us from getting the full use out of fuel sources in America. France and other countries are doing way better with updating their policies to match modern technology.
As you mentioned, advancements in technology not only make Nuclear safer than it has ever been, but also make it possible to safely extract more energy from the fuel sources than we could in the past. This means that if the policies were updated, we could actually use rods that were considered "spent" but are still stored on site at many Nuclear power plants as disposal has always been a heated debate.
The other problem with Nuclear is that most people don't really understand it and are afraid because they hear the horror stories of Chernobyl, Fukushima, and weaponized Nuclear devices such as Fat Man, Little Boy, and the Tsar Bomba.
Truth is more people have died or become severely ill from complications associated with contaminants released into the environment from coal plants than have from all the Nuclear incidents in the world combined, but it more spread out by time which makes it harder to identify than the quicker identification from a Nuclear incident being tied to a much small location and timeframe.
Funny part about electric cars is where you also have to consider the materials necessary to create a new car vs. using what has already been manufactured and also the consideration of the source that is charging the electric car. Plugging one in at your home supposedly uses approximately 30% more power than a normal US household, so you can expect a 30% cost increase on your power bill (which might still be cheaper than gas depending on where you live). If saving money is the goal, you could possibly break even if the costs come down on electric vehicles, but if saving the planet is the goal, people also need to consider what kind of plant is powering their house or apartment. My apartment is powered by a coal plant. That means if I bought an electric vehicle, I'd be using coal to power my vehicle instead of gasoline. Is that any cleaner? I honestly do not know, but it certainly isn't as clean as people would like to believe.
As for trains, that might work for a lot of countries, but unfortunately America is large and spread out. They are great for big cities, but the majority of people living in America that use cars on a daily basis live in suburban areas that were intentionally built to optimize personal vehicle use and to make public transportation inconvenient. Look into it, cul de sacs make neighborhoods a nightmare for busses to travel and slow down cars to make it safer for children who might be outside playing. Designing neighborhoods the way they are in America has reduced vehicular accidents in neighborhoods, but made them really difficult to navigate on foot or via public transportation. This seriously needs to be addressed if we want to cut back on car ownership and promote public transportation. Some areas still won't be able to rely on public transportation regardless though when you consider how much farmland we have, farmers, and people who work in those places.
I went a few weeks earlier this year without a car and it was pretty rough (someone drove into me totaling my car out). I live in an industrialized area more designed for truckers than foot traffic. I can't tell you how many places I walked where I was close to fast moving trucks and had no sidewalk. I came home pelted with tiny rocks that flew off the asphalt when the trucks drove past me. My white socks became grey and nasty. There's no bus routes nearby and the closest train station is probably about 15 miles away. There's no space for a bike, nothing. I ended up getting a rental for part of the time being. I also spent some time in a few other places during this time including my boyfriend's place out of state and had similar issues near his apartment. Inner cities would benefit a lot from better public transportation, but outside of the cities, something else should be considered. I really like the idea of shared vehicles if self driving cars become a more available option. A vehicle would come get you kind of like uber, but when not in use, it would be parked charging or something until someone else requests a car at which point, it would go get them. The hard part about that idea though is ownership. Americans like to own their own stuff and the thought that it isn't theirs could dissuade some people...
Anyways I think I've typed enough.
Oh yeah, one more thing, most power grid systems regardless of the type of power generation they use are only designed to run optimally for approximately 30 years.
Yes, most of our power plants are severely out of date by this standard (and this makes upgrading Nuclear plants that much more important as many of them are closer to 50 years without renovations despite the 30 year optimization I mentioned which is also why some hazards occur to Nuclear power plants in particular). This doesn't mean a power plant needs to be taken out of commission at the 30 year mark, but that the efficiency and safety measures may have advanced during that time and the power plants should have renovations done after 30 years to modernize the equipment or risk hazards associated with worn out materials. This applies to all power plants, coal, hydro, natural gas, solar, wind, as well as nuclear. Just an interesting thing to note when it is mentioned that solar panels only last 30 years and that is only provided that nothing else damages them prior to that 30 year mark. I'd imagine hurricanes in Florida have probably ruined many solar panels before that 30 year mark.
You should also look into how solar panels are wired. Did you know that a single shadow can cut efficiency across an entire panel because the wafers are wired as a series circuit? This is to prevent inverters from becoming overloaded within the panel. If they were wired in parallel, inverters would get destroyed by too much power getting sent through them during peak production hours. It's the wafers in the panel that are wired in this manner. Some of the other portions are wired in parallel (depending on the specific set up), but the smaller sections do not afford the space for inverters that can handle higher levels of power. Some whole home power grids are wired in series depending on the type of inverter that is being used within the home. Inverters change DC power to AC power (for anyone else reading this that doesn't know what a power inverter is).
I have also heard that solar panels take a drop in efficiency as soon as they are installed, you need to clean them a day after installation to regain the loss.
There was a vertical axis hydro power system being designed that would work in areas with a 4 knot current. They actually floated in the water, anchored in position. They lose power generation if used in salt water when the tide changes, at about 10 to 15 minutes every 6 hours. This type of hydro electric system doesn't have the costs and risks of building a dam to store a water buffer for energy production but has almost the same maintenance costs.
There is a 360 odd acre plot available locally that has an existing dam and permit for a 1 kw/h power plant, they built the dam, created the reservoir but never completed the construction. Of course, currently it is 100% off-grid, not even cell service on the properties, it is adjacent to a park so development is strictly controlled / limited.
@@kraziecatclady american suburban neighborhoods are the pinnacle of selfishness and disregard of others. "let's build a living area which is so remote that no one else but those who live here drive cars around, but also that forces us to use cars to go everywhere so we export the problems".
@@realGBx64 Oh, I agree completely. If you dig deeper, there are ties related to increased automotive sales and making it harder for people below the poverty level to move into suburban areas because at one point, most impoverished families could not afford vehicles at all and living in the suburbs without a vehicle is very inconvenient.
Now, most families in America can afford vehicles, but impoverished families cannot afford decent vehicles and the excessive maintenance required to keep their vehicles on the road eats away at the savings they could be using to make their situation better. Older vehicles not only require more repairs but generally also have higher insurance rates because they don't qualify for as many rebates as newer vehicles do or may not have the same safety features such as day running lights and airbags. They are also less fuel efficient. Even hybrids lose fuel efficiency over time from a combination of wear and tear and technological improvements.
Now the push is to get people to move on to electric vehicles, but not everyone can afford them yet and if additional fees are imposed on people still driving fossil fuel vehicles, it will be another charge that impoverished people incur that the more wealthy people are able to get out of, but people aren't putting much thought into that, just like they aren't considering the power sources charging those vehicles.
Everything is a mess when it comes to the environment and policy. They should be focusing on policies that are designed to make new neighborhoods work better with public transportation/foot traffic or the companies designing the neighborhoods incur a fee, but instead people want to focus on forcing everyone to buy an electric vehicle and possibly start paying a "mileage tax." 🤷♀️
@@kraziecatclady Electric cars are a fake solution. They are still cars, and while they might not pollute at the point of use, they still require all the idiotic infrastructure like parking spaces and 8-lane city roads, and they are still noisy as they whizz by on their rubber wheels. Yeah, electric cars are for the rich narcissist so they can pretend to care.
I only lived in Eastern Europe and Asia, and I was always lucky to be able to do almost everything on foot, even my commute, and the occasional trip on public transport. And this is how cities and towns are built organically. Americans enforce stupid design by the stupid zoning laws.
I work on the most popular pile drivers used for installing solar fields. Kind of ironic that is uses gasoline... but the areas are usually so remote that they don't have power at the point of pile installation so I don't see that changing ever really.
Edit: Am an engineer and really appreciated the outro. Makes me feel appreciated and really motivated that I am helping the world be just a bit better.
We just need 1.5mil windmills to power the world. windmills aren’t actually harmful to the environment that rumor was made by the fossil fuel industry so they can make more money
This is one of the best summaries I've seen so far on this topic. Great job!
Wren: inspires me to become VFX artist
Also wren: tells me to become engineer
Me: I’ll become both
As an engineer, I plead with you to not try and do two careers, engineering is broad enough and in sufficient demand to give you a hundred careers!
@@chrisarmstrong5611 thanks for the tip
That's what he did... well I'm not sure if he dropped out of engineering school, but it was what he was in school for.
Become a wren
@@devanggupta9007 a wrengineer? Or a wrenderer?
Forget about solar panels, I want Wren's air conditioning.
You should try installing solar panels on your car for that extra JUICE.
This series is full of so much information its captivating.
Bro conveniently forgot to mention the area that nuclear power uses.
because this is propaganda to increase China's battery sales
6:40
"Hippies?! We're not hippies..."
"We're libertarians."
Underrated line
I actually laughed out loud whilst on my own.
As a libertarian I can confirm. Although personally I wouldn't shoot the crap out of the solar panel.
That's literally how it is outside of the cities of California and especially northern california.
@@CreeperDude-cm1wv libertarian (derogatory)
@@jaas0225
I'm not sure whether or not this is supposed to be offensive
I’m a solar developer here, the estimate we use is 6 acres per MW. It really depends on the location of the panels. In California where sun is shining almost all the time for 12 hours a day 4 acres is probably right but in the East it’s different. You addressed a lot of parts that go into solar development consideration. There is a lot that goes into this industry, but if you want to talk more Wren, feel free to message me. Regardless it was a very educational video.
That is amazing. I would love to be involved in solar devolopment someday.
How much kW do you need for the production of a 1m² panel (averaged of course) including the recycling and reusage of the same material for the solar panels (including all the transports etc.)?
How much loss is there per recycling cycle? (geniune questions)
That's not the whole story. In Lancaster (California), the sun shines 12 hours a day. Solar power = 0, because the panels are clogged with sand.
@@DaimonTrilogy that goes more into the design side and production side of solar panels. I mostly work with land development for solar energy production. Sadly I don’t have the answers but if I find them out I’ll let you know.
@@jonnyerts3997 go into electrical or mechanical engineering and try to get some internships in utilities or energy if you want to go into development. If you want to do design then then go into research for Battery tech or try to get an internship with a solar design firm. Those are the routes I’d take and took to be in the position I’m in today.
Thank you so much for this video. This was the most comprehensive simple way to explain renewable energy I have seen. Thank you so much.
Here's a huge problem with the video, though. All those solar panels have to be replaced. All of those batteries that store the energy of the solar panels have to be replaced. Co2 can at least be consumed as food for plants, but the chemical waste of solar panel and batteries is forever toxic. What about the huge amounts of energy wasted from it being radiated out of electrical lines? You'd need to replace all of those wires with superconductors to completely eliminate that problem, short of shipping batteries everywhere. The reality is, it is not feasible to solve the energy problem without inducing huge costs in the form of a massive and constant stream of crippling industrial waste production.
I'm an engineer and race driver, and my first race car was actually a solar-electric car called Hyperion that we raced in 1999. We actually hand built our own panels. We only had 14% efficiency back then. Watching you videos on this topic really brings back memories. You also do a great job of explaining the pros and cons on the technology and showing how we can optimize our use of it. I'd love to see a video on the efficiency of the cells and what effects it. For example, the protective coatings used to keep the fragile cells from breaking decrease the efficiency, but without them, they'll easily crack if not handled very carefully.
That's awesome!
But that would show how inefficient it would be to power the world by solar panels. This is a propaganda piece designed to attract an investor, not a scientific study of anything.
Im studying mechanical engineering and my University has a Formula Student racing team that has the Only electric race car in the competition. I think I’m gonna try out for it after seeing your comment and this video
solar car racers everywhere!
I actually just took a course on panel design, the coatings actually increase efficiency bc they change the coefficient of refraction, they're called AR coatings (anti-reflective). Rn the biggest thing limiting panel efficiency is cost, you could easily beat current consumer panel efficiency but you'd never get it into a reasonable price range. That ends up being the same issue as graphene tech, basically the technology for industrial scale production isn't there just yet. But it will be, and in the meantime we could be sailing by pretty cleanly on fission... but hey what do ik I'm just an ee...
I’m currently applying to study nuclear energy in college, so the shout out to engineers at the end was a nice surprise! And if you found this video interesting do some light research on nuclear power, it fascinates me
fusion energy is the true next step, but we will most probably have to wait for the next industrial revolution
Those SMRs are really cool. The right answer to climate change might be the answer I give when I get asked which toppings I want on my burrito bowl: all of them please
Definitely would have loved to see more discussion about the current nuclear potential, very realistic in my opinion. Amazing work in that field!
I studied nuclear energy and all I can say is that I feel happier than ever working in what passionates me (nuclear engineering). As with nuclear you need to focus a lot on safety, all possible scenarios and on why does humanity need so much this energy source, I felt the constant necessity to inform myself about ecology, to ask myself and answer which is the most effective energy source, with the least impact on the environment. I found so many fascinating things, and I defend nuclear more than ever. I encourage you to keep your application and study nuclear energy.
navy nuke here, see you in the workforce in a few years(hopefully)
I so agree with everything that you are saying. I am starting my journey as a engineer and want to help humanity face climate change. This video inspired me to provail. Thank you Corridor crew....
So surprised he didnt mention how batteries and solar panel are made, how we get the materials, and their own serious effects on the environment.
Or the inhuman way lithium has to be collected.
My biggest question after watching this is:
How many resources would it take to make 23 billion solar panels? And what kind of strain would that put on associating industries? Is it doable?
No, because the entire series of solar panels would have to be replaced every 25 years on average, and solar panels are not recyclable as currently made. Ideal case solar panels lose 2% effeciency per year, which rarely holds up in the real world.
So not only would we have to make that many solar panels install, maintain, we'd also have to have a viable way to replace that often, and huge tracts of continents are far less sunny than LA and would not generate it's needs
@@johnfahrenkrug8217 Yeah, which is why more realistic would probably be advancement in fusion and nuclear power.
@@johnfahrenkrug8217 how tf you Zoomers can pretend to sit through a Ted Talk and still come out saying the exact opposite of the presented evidence is beyond belief
Pretty disingenuous to say "solar energy is free energy", and ignoring all the raw materials needed to build a solar panel. Also there are other ways to get solar energy, like pointing a buch of mirrors to a water tank and then the steam power a turbine , its less efficient but it requiers less maintenance . Nuclear energy is pretty clean right now , and its watt for watt more efficient.
@@topogigio7031 What exactly you are referring at? I get it that you disagreed with him about something, but you forgot to say what you are disagreeing about. If you want to go as far as generalize whole generation and even assume someone random on the internet is part of it, at least make some effort to explain your point instead of blind "it is beyond belief" without any details on what is.
this lifted my doubts and stressful thoughts about choosing to study engineering
Same
Didn't quite expect seeing you here
What? How does that track?
Cool logo
verified moment
Wren adding the Tolkien quote and making this a sincere message on top of being an entertaining cg video is EXACTLY why I Love yall ❤️❤️❤️
Not sure how I missed this one. I love the science series Wren makes!
Wren: Become an engineer
Me who is sitting in my school’s department of engineering: I’m trying!
Same! Hahaha
switch to design you're going to learn a ton of calculus to realize designers just use wolfram alpha and we already know how to use solid works better than you.
@@noway5096 we can do that or, hear me out on this, _we can team up, you design proposals and we can analyze and build them!_
@@cardansan HMMMmmm (Personality1: they have a point) (personality 2: I know but we can do everything our self) (personality1: *SLAP*) I think you're on to something. We gotta focus on sustainable materials though.
@@noway5096 hahaha, tell p2 that yes, anyone can do everything by themselves but it becomes a matter of _how long will it take them on their own vs with more people_ so it becomes a matter about being efficient, hehe. ;)
Also, of course, sustainable materials ftw!
One option I'd like to see, is covering the roofs of school buildings with panels. The schools would benefit from the generated electricity while the surrounding neighborhoods would be a minimal demand (while most people are at work) and could distribute to the community after school hours while capturing revenue for the school system from selling that power. Since most are closed during the summer, the power generated during those months would be primarily sold to the community as demand rises for home cooling.
And why, oh why, isnt it in ALL the building codes, that new buildings should have solar panels on the roof...??!
in india, govt is covering schools college via solar panels, their analogy is that the more they make newer gen interact with solar the more doubts will be cleared about its reliability, govt literally pays 50% cost of installing a solar panel, but still not many people are interested in it due to reliability issues, moreover the govt has been upgrading grid to feed power from these homes, supply this power to industries and at night supply back to the homes, still not many people are intrested, though there has been huge gains in rural areas, many farm equipments now run only on solar but this success is mainly due ot the fact that indian agriculture is not very technologically advanced
also govt is also investing in providing cheaper household goods which are efficient like LED's instead of convential light, and these are some of the reason india is doing good and the only major country which can meet its paris agreement targets
@@bos1200 California started one, I hope other stats will follow. The roofs will pay for themselves, no reason not to have them.
Increasing the cost of maintenance of said roofs which only last a certain amount of time increasing the true install costs of the panels themselves. There will be no sell back in the future as the base load system necessary will no longer sustain it. Solar is a piggy back for false virtue as it relies on an existing system.
@@churblefurbles Yeah while this video looks great and all, the questions about longevity, carbon footprint of manufacture and maintenance were avoided! In my eyes a solution would be to decrease co2 emissions enough just to build the infrastructure for green energy, and then build from there. Like stopping all factories which make stupid stuff, which we don't actually need. Getting rid of planned obsolescence. Reducing overall livestock while increasing quality (meat industry). etc... This is where we should start, not at "oh let's put solar panels on every roof bam, problem solved!" this is just stupid...
Left out literally 2 of the most important parts. Resources needed to make these billions of solar panels and batteries. A lithium-ion battery needs 4 main resources: Lithium, Graphite, Cobalt, and Manganese. The current mining methods we have for several of these are very destructive to land and we'd need a LOT of it. We'd destroy more than what is done for mining coal to achieve this. Nuclear is the cleanest, most efficient, most realistic energy source.
Type 1 civilization in the future: wow corridor crew you explained us perfectly
As a researcher in this field I was thoroughly impressed by the amount of effort, attention to detail and pure passion that was put into this video. I've seen papers submitted that this video would put to shame! Really well done and thank you for playing your part in the change that is needed ❤
🥺🥺🥺🥺🙏🙏🙏🙏
He didn't address the material requirments though, which is what actually holds back widespread adoption. Converting just the US to solar would require 100% of global silver mining for the next 99 years. And that's just the US, which produces a fraction of the world's co2 (China produces nearly half). It's an argument that completley misses the real issue.
@@ThePolysyllabist That's the whole point of Wren's request for people to become engineers so they could solve problems.
It's not like current solar tech is at it's best, as Wren said, it's only 20% efficient in capturing light, that means 80% of light that hits the panel just heats it up or reflects off of it and does no work.
This is something that has a LOT of room for improvement!
The same goes for Lithium Ion batteries, they are great right now, but they do require some pretty rare and hard to find elements, but they are also not the pinnacle of energy storage as there's many new designs for solid state batteries being researched right now, some of them using elements that are abundant everywhere (like Silicon) requiring no rare elements in their construction. All of these designs last longer than LI batteries and have much higher power to volume ratios, but they currently lack funding to refine them into usable mass-production models.
So yes, materials are a problem right now, if we just tried to use current tech as is. If we just invest in developing green technologies, however, those material problems will go away pretty quickly if the money that is currently going to fight against electrification (lobbying, campaigning, advertising, etc...) were invested into coming up with solutions on how to make it work.
@@ThePolysyllabist With any topic there could be thousands of nuances, do you want a video that covers it all? Because that would take literal hours.
Could you share where you got those figures from? Seems very convenient how round and easy those numbers are to work with, that would be a nice coincidence and lining up of the data for presentation.
Second, you can apply those arguments to preserving the current way of things, as all of modern engineering requires precious earth metals. So your not making an argument, your just pointing out the negatives. So should we stop using ICE engines, high spec turbines or mobile phones because of the resource requirements?
Better yet, let's just reverse the industrial age because it uses materials that we had to redesign supply chains for. I mean it would take over a hundred years to implement this so called steam engine, so why bother? Let's just continue cooking over fires whilst freezing to death occasionally in winter.
That's essentially your argument but with a modern spin. Humanity always strives to adapt and overcome the greatest challenges, not give up at the first sign of resistance. Just because there are challenges to adopting sustainable energy does not mean we should do it, nor does realising it will be tough mean you can just pretend the damage from fossil fuels doesn't need to stop.
There are many ways to harvest solar energy outside PV, yet you only mention the materials required for silicon wafer based panels. This is because you don't actually have an interest in resolving the issue, and are instead arguing a point you view as societal/political/tribal. Otherwise your point is literally mundane and irrelevant, as you have completely missed the bigger picture, and are essentially complaining about a speck of dust in a sandy desert.
As per usual it's a big topic with many nuances, solar is just one tiny piece of the puzzle.
Have you read or know of the US Department of Energy’s Renewable Electricity Futures Report and RE-IT 80% model?
"be an engineer "
indian parents: we are 10 parallel universes ahead of you
So true🤣
Chinese parents: "India's parents imagine they live in another universe".
vfx artists are actually crazy, and also reasonably paid
One slight problem. In order to produce the amount of solar panels needed. We would have to use fossil fuels to do it. As well as switch everything to electric.
The best course of action is nuclear. There hasn’t been a nuclear accident (except for putting a reactor by the ocean for some reason) in 30+ years
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but that GIANT bucket wheel excavator that he said "whatever this is" is electric already, runs on 3 phase, and uses 16.56 megawatts of externally supplied power. The device is called a Bagger 293 if you want to read more about it.
It's also used to mine coal and does NOT run on solar energy.
@@clray123 i partially does run on solar + hydro + nuclear
Interesting, never seen one in person, but the second youtube intro'd me I was very curious. Never knew the name til now though.
@@clray123 The solar panels will reflect all the sunlight and heat the earth even more than it is.. The earth has to absorb heat not disperse it
@@ferdtheterd3897 That would happen, if we wood make it on a big scale, one big forest fire does warm the atmosphere more than solar would. But we actually don't need so much space. Fission energy plants, produce less than solar on the same space. And solar is a lot cheaper. So yeah, sure we need some energy storage, but we always switched to better storages and fuels, now we go electric, it will be cheaper, safer, more silent, better for nature and us in the long run.
It’s incredible that we can get these documentary grade videos for free
@@logiarhythm6285 free enough for me. Isn't tiktok "free"? This is quality content.
@@logiarhythm6285 actually in this case it’s mostly paid for by Corridor members
@@Sebbir and CC gets its revenues from Google on one hand, that gets it from selling their users to advertisement partners and from YT premium users. On the other hand it's the sponsorships like Vessi, Raycon and God-knows-whichever-VPN that are paying for your time - depending on how you value your time it might by cheap or it might not.
Since I was 15 I've wondered about the idea of "What if we just started building rooves out of solar panels?"
If every roof of every building in the world was solar panels instead of concrete, tin and tiles, we'd make way more then enough energy to power the whole planet. There'd be so much excess energy that we could do things like make all the lines and signs on the roads into lights and every house in the world could have 24/7 air conditioning pre-installed.
They forget to mention that solar panels are incredibly fragile and take a lot of maintenance and also use those exhaustible resources mentioned at the start.
That Gandalf quote is timeless. I always get teary eyed when I hear it.
which one is it?
@@Leprutz 19:20
I love it so much I got it tattooed on my back a long time ago!
i’ve always been really impressed by how well Wren takes such complex ideas and makes them easy to digest. sooo great to finally see this passion project come to life! this turned out amazing, great job Wren!
The answer to this problem is Tesla, exlirater fusion reacter and thermal explosion. Tesla is the most important element. Tesla wifi like electricity useing the atmosphere ionosphere as a conductor sending electrical energy without damage to environment, without loss easily and quickly across a 8000km max range for one tower. However, this will increase the military power of the superpowers making any war 100x more worse. This properly if used by Germany in WW2 would have made them at least hold on most of Europe and North-Africa. Companies at the time rejected Tesla because oile just began and it is toooo revolutionary.
4:25
"Whats the weather today"
" *S U N* "
1:46 The way Wren keeps looking to the passenger side just makes me think like imagine getting into your Uber and they started going off about climate change with the energy of Wren lol
Nuclear power is heavily underrated. When we crack fusion and make it re-producible & can draw power from it, it will truly change the world. Fission as it is already does better than literally all other sources.
The main problem is cost. When you look at the LCOE estimates for a nuclear power plant vs a solar farm you can see why it's so unattractive. At least in the US, I guess if you're in a country with no sun or land its a great solution
@@JayJay-dp8kyI mean we get almost all of our solar panels from china, if we made them our selfs like nuclear, it would cost alot more.
We don’t even need fusion, we just need to start making LFTRs
The Nuclear Cartel is From Hell...F u k u s h i m a is the reason for the death of the Pacific and the heatwave that will get worse and started after that disaster.
Anyone that believes in Fusion...or Quantum computers is a sucker.. those like the LHC and NASA are black holes for funding and the talking points for academic regurgitators who dont understand what theyre saying... so you want to maintain a temperarture of 10000 degrees in a man made structure for how long? wait... Im not laughing at you... were laughing together right?
11:55 That excavator is electric, supplied with external electric power. It is from the Krupp company, which also made the Bagger 288 (I think this is an older and smaller model operating in Greece).
It's ironic that an electric machine is extracting coal.
@@IntegrandoConhecimento If it makes you feel you better, you might just consider the excavator as an extension of the power plant (which you can see in the background), feeding it with coal. This assumes that thinking of a gigantic doomsday machine makes you feel better... ;)
@@IntegrandoConhecimento Not really these machines where designed to power powerplants as efficient as possible.
They work even in groups.
First the realy big ones dig of the soil to get to the lignite coal seam.
folowing "smaller" machines dig up the lignite coal to feed the powerplants.
Current German powerplants are mostly powerd by lignite coal.
What are you even talking about? Everyone knows that it's the Overlord Transformer which is terraforming earth so all Transformers can move to earth when their homeplanet explodes.
@@moos5221 Yes. It's building a 20km Autobahn.
Everyone: "20km is sure a short Autobahn..."
Optimus Prime: "You are correct. 20km is how wide it is."
I like the idea of replacing France with solar panels.
Thanks for this video! After some thought, I think I'll start aiming to be an engineer in the future. I'm doing really well in mathematics and kinda enjoy it, and am sorta decent enough in science too, so its likely
Heck yeah dude! Go for it! I'm an aspiring biomedical engineer myself :) so far, it's a lot of work; but it's fun too! And you get to know the ins and outs of how things work too.
Nuclear. As an engineer directly involved with the energy and infrastructure grid in the US, nuclear is the answer to areas that need a large amount of energy.
Then you must know it's completely cost prohibitive.
@@JRP3 Nuclear is the cheapest and cleanest form of energy production, even with the high startup costs.
@@JRP3 Well there are 2 things agast that. One is ridiculous laws that get in the way driving up costs and the other is less being built so making a new plant your essentially starting from scratch.
@@willsham45 Reducing laws/regulations, i.e. allowing cost cutting, for nuclear is a terrible idea and it's not as if nuclear plant construction has completely stopped and all knowledge has been forgotten so no you are not essentially starting from scratch. Nuclear is expensive and corners cannot be cut because of the potential for widespread disaster. LFTR reactors may make more sense and I'm all for exploring those.
But then there is chernobyl, which gave it a bad name. Imo, nuclear energy would be usefull, but if you dont have the people behind your back, well...
We've got solor panels over our whole roof, lemme tell you, 8$ power bill is so much better than 400$
You’re ignorant and you should learn… but who I’m to judge… wait for the end.. until then be safe and pray for forgiveness 🥰
@@denisbenett9479 ?
@@denisbenett9479 are you like gay? you sound gay
bit of an investment initially, but it pays for itself in a couple of months.
@@level8473 they sound more like someone who hates gay people
The issue isn’t how many panels we need. It’s how many batteries we need.
This is your best video, Wren. So well put together, funny and easy to comprehend. The kind of video I show to my friends when I want to explain the subject to them.
Hey, Matt you here my boy lmao and yeah I agree with you
Let us not forget. Solar panels radiate a lot of heat. More then the energy they absorb. The toxic chemicals it takes to make them. All the fossil fuels it would take to make them. Solar panels degrade, brake, and need lots of maintenance.
@@SgtD85 actually aperently they don't need to be fixed so often, but it's still very hard and expecive to recycle efter they're too old also they are just not eficient anough yet. Using solar panels is a good idea, but not for our today's technology
Indeed ..!!
@@emanuel3617 yes but depends were we put the solar panels. "Parking lot" will have cars hitting them. In texas, sure tornados would take many of them out.
But yeah in general. They just won't cut it. The only real way to go green to make a change would to be go Amish.
As an Electrical Engineer I agree we need to look to solar for some aspects of our grid. However, ignoring the reality of mass production that would need to happen to get a fraction of the amount of panels needed is a big blind spot. Nuclear power and SMR's are our only way to be able to become net zero in a time frame that would slow climate change. At best it will be a multi form power generation grid with Nuclear as the base load provider.
Not to mention nuclear's glow-in-the-dark properties is a definite selling point. As well as its infinite storage requirement once used, my favourite.
There's also the fusion reactors that they're trying to build and those could probably run a whole country with them and save space
@@hitreset0291 Any idea what nuclear means? It's not just uranium, but also cleaner sources like thorium which can be shut down instantly and decays after only couple of decades.
@@Killofgamersdoom honestly i dont think our technology in the near future allows fusion reactors. and why build one when we already have sun, which is a big fusion reactor? like what the video say solar dont waste as much space as we though lol.
@@gohkairen2980 people are actually building one in southern france rn and it should be finished within the next few years. The best thing is the only waste it produces are materials that we use and they can't have a meltdown.
Fun fact: in the atmosphere (specifically the ionosphere) because the magnetosphere is interacting with the ionosphere, the ions are charged, if we could harness this then we could have infinite energy
the level of editing and research is mind blowing ,, fun to watch
I've often found that making the actual visuals is far easier than figuring out what the hell the visual should even be. You have that 2nd part down really well. You come up with extremely simple and yet still relevant visuals to represent things. Boiling down these big numbers to things people can grasp and relate to is difficult at the best of times. But dealing with quadrillions of watts and millions of acres is no small task. Especially when so many take that 8M acres number and use that to make it sound impossible or like it will cover the whole country. There is so much purposeful misinformation these days.
Yeah the comparison of land use by other industries was brilliant. Really shows how doable something like that is
@@dhkatz_ Seriously. Yeah, it would be expensive up front, and would probably take a few years... but we freaking put people on the Moon in 9 years. We can do this.
@@mycroft16 In 2019 less then 200k solar panels were produced world wide that year, if you want to use the moon analogy then okay, it would be like if NASA was a fireworks company, that wanted to send people to the moon.
@@papab34r At the time Kennedy made his speech we hadn't even placed a single human in orbit yet. We have the ability to do it. But apparently we lack completely the will to do it because it might be hard.
@@mycroft16 rocket technology were used during the second world war by all sides and the Germans had created sizeable rockets before the end of the war, some 20 years before Pres. Kennedy made his famous speech in 62. Moreover NASA and other agencies invested heavily into the technologies and the knowhow to get into orbit and to the moon. They didn't just start mass producing V2 rockets and state that these are good enough, if we only keep building these, then one of them might reach the moon.
"Coal is the worst for carbon emissions"
**Cries in Australian**
Not only that but its also the worst in energetic efficiency as per matter consumed in order to generate energy
I think you mean *cries in chinese*
@@inszel no, Australia is the largest exporter and producer of coal energy. Unfortunately because we haven't had very progressive people in charge and because they're in bed with the oil, coal and gas companies.
There was actually a proposed additional tax on electric vehicles because "they wouldn't use petrol stations" which is bullshit because petrol stations haven't contributed to roads in decades
It's sad because Aussie has soooo much land space for solar!
@@WrathChild-NZ and Sun! So sunny down here, even in winter
I would use compressed air for long term storage, instead of hydrogen since the energy loss is not as extreme and storage wont be as problematic. For short term storage capacitors, hydro and kinetic solutions will probably do.
Why is Wren not the host of some cool science show for kids?
He would be perfect!!
"instead of a dark lord, you will get a SOLAR PANEL" 😂😂😂
the size of a tangerine.
This whole video didn’t mention the prospect of nuclear. Nuclear energy would take so much less land, be so much cheaper, and the whole world wouldn’t plunge into chaos if it was cloudy for a few months
Nah you could not talk about that to us climate change people cause firstly it doesn't fit the propaganda and ofcourse non of us has iq more than 60 to understand anything nuclear sooo 🤫
😂😂🤣✌️
nuclear is good and cheap but not suitable for small countries that will get critically affected if there's a meltdown. even low risk is still a risk. a combination of solar, wind, hydro and nuclear will be nice.
@@omkar1275 lol you clearly know nothing about anything kid, only stupid fks will say climate change is a 'propaganda'. btw nuclear isn't even renewable lol
@@gohkairen2980 No, there is no risk you just need to make reactors that cannot have meltdowns.
@@Merecir well saying is easy, do you know the solution? if not pls don't say there isn't nuclear meltdown risk. even 1% risk is a risk and to be honest I don't think the risk will ever be zero since nuclear fission producing large amount of heat is a fact we can't change and some sort of cooling is always needed. of course I'll be more than happy to accept nuclear power plant when it becomes risk free. for now I'm with solar
The fact that you started writing this a few years ago means I’m going to watch it
this is a great video, but what about nuclear? would love to hear more about that as well
The important thing to remember is 100% of our energy can't come from one source. There needs to be a mix of solar,hydro, wind,nuclear and geo-thermal.
Not just nuclear fission
But fusion too
And fossil.
with carbon capture
@@MrKillerRC the whole idea is not to use fossil fuel, you d*mb or what?
@@MrKillerRC why?
This video gets actually very personal to me, I am currently studying Physics and one of my Professors leads a whole research group and laboratories in the context of solar panels; pushing efficiency designing batteries and many other crazy genius ideas, like developing organic molecules for solar panels that could be grown in plants and bacteria. Your video and this research is what gives me hope humanity still could make it out of this climate crisis with a black eye.
wow ...you're....not very bright are you? Its a sham.
@@b00stedrust "We tried nothing and we are out of ideas!"
The libertarian's bit killed me. "No step on snake."
I was scared for a second there when I thought Wren was gonna propose conquering New Zealand for solar panel use, but I'm glad he moved past it
Can you do a follow up to the question: "What will it take to solarpower us?" Because the recources we would need for those solar pannels are a big issue.
Bigger than what? The climate change issue? Sounds worth it.
@2tally Gr8 They heat up...like anything facing the sun. Also, in the video was quite clear that more than enough farms and houses are already built. And...well, I don't mind too much birds getting cooked vs everybody getting cooked.
Also, kind of weird not putting on the land that colar may cut of but also being ok with having 4 parking spots for every car in the USA.
Also, not sure that solar is a interplanetary issue.
@@xaxorime7447 climate change 🤣
Don't forget energy storage. Batteries are worse than gas in terms of emissions
It would take much less resources than what we're currently using to power our societies. It's a lot but nothing too crazy. Look up the lifecycle impact of all cars we have. Or all energy power plant. It's it's in the same ballpark or more that what the impact of producing solar panels is.
"In a renewable energy world, lithium will be the new oil."
Afghanistan and Bolivia: Here we go again...
Lithium is not that important for our energy future, there are plenty of energy-storage solutions that do not rely on lithium batteries, like fluid-state or liquid-air battery technology.
Don't forget Argentina!
@John Buck It's a scam perpetuated by videos like this which idolize it and ignore the processes required to extract, manufacture, and maintain the systems.
I'm betting on Sodium.
@John Buck The point of renewable energy is to reduce carbon emissions to a point where we're not literally killing our planet by heating it up uncontrollably.
Mining isn't the problem. Fossil Fuels, or more specifically, their inefficiency and the amount of damage they cause to the environment are the real problem.
You cannot stop mining because nothing can be made without materials, but if we're majorly electric and renewable, at least we won't be suffocating the planet. Even the energy used for mining would be clean, so it wouldn't be a problem.
The point is to try something instead of just sitting down and dying because we were too caught up in trying to find the perfect solution.
14:33 i like how you conveniently left out of incredibly toxic lithium is and how hard it is to mine. To to mention where do we dispose of said batteries?
Throw it into the ocean. The electric eels arent gonna charge themselves.
Your lucid way of explanation is exactly why I watch your videos! Loved the message at the end! ❤
In that a Lucid dad joke?
@@RicondaRacing Wonder why there wasn't a hate comment in the comments section. Turns out, you are hiding in the replies!
I’m in chem eng right now, and I just thought it was important for Him to mention that not also do we need more engineers, but trades as well. Things like this don’t get done by themselves. Trades are the backbone of almost everything, engineers can design all day but there actually are people required to build your ideas. Getting cost down on construct takes the need for more people working and engineers together. Lots of these changes are never solved with government, government likes to tell people what to do but economics actually make things happen.
Governments create thriving economies.....go ahead and name one thriving economy that does not rely on a government.....crickets
@@chemteacher4637 Perhaps general trade? Governments can benefit from transactions via taxation, but a government is not a prerequisite for a trade to occur. There are oversight and trading standards, but they exist in response to trade, not prior to it. "I'll give you three of my chickens for one of your goats" - I see no need for a government there. Though, I will agree it's a rather crude example. :) Isn't CZcams itself an example of a thriving economy which came about without relying on any government to exist?
@@sludgiebear If you think CZcams could have been created without a government, you are beyond lost my friend.
CZcams relies on the relative safety and stability that the US and California governments provide. It also relies on government infrastructure and education. It relies heavily on government immigration control.....The government also actively seeks to protect copyright and trademark infringements around the world....The list goes on and on.
@@chemteacher4637 The principal idea I wanted to bring to the table was that general trade has no need for a government to be involved in any capacity. Thanks
@@chemteacher4637 Okay, in order for me to trade with you something between ourselves, do we need to consult or involve any government in any way? I say no. Scale that to Business-to-Business, etc. and I feel the answer remains the same, apart from the likes of oversight (which have been created after the fact). Simply put: people can make money and profit without government intervention via trade, and I believe this to be an economy which does not rely on government in order to fundamentally function.
I really appreciate the call for us young people to go into engineering. I've just recently graduated high school and I'll be going into electrical engineering with a focus on renewables. Hopefully I can help to be one of the pieces in this puzzle we have to solve.
We all need you!
Godspeed sir
@@harrrypoterr not how anything works regardless, Einstein didn't graduate high school with such narrow aims.
Good luck sir! As Wren said you're the superheroes.
We also need tradesmen to construct and install said panels, roofs, wiring infrastructure, etc.
but if you add solar panels, most of the energy will be captured as energy and some of the energy will be captured as heat and released in the atmosphere by the solar panel, while, without solar panels, some of the energy/heat thats being captive on earth, is reflected
I like the fact, that he approaches the topic with facts and information instead of just saying climate change bad.
"We need Engineers"
India's millions of unemployed engineers: BRUH
lol so truueeee
Most of them software engineers, I would imagine?
@Dragon dang you have a poor image of ur country don't ya
@Dragon bro what are you on about? Its sad you got scammed but going apeshit crazy and spreading hate towards your own country on the internet is just pathetic. You're just an immature and delusional spoilt kid seeking validation on the internet. Grow out of it. I hope you don't get associated with similar stereotypes when you move out of the country.
@Dragon well aren't you a fool for falling for these scams ?
Machines powered by electricity:
When I was in secondary school, about 55 years ago, my geology class visited an open-cast iron ore mine.
I remember that we saw a walking drag-line excavator. 😃
I had built a model of one, so I was excited to see the real thing.
The drag-line was powered entirely by electricity - but no batteries!
The power cable was about 3 or 4 inches diameter, and armoured and very heavy.
When the drag-line needed to move, a bulldozer was called in to move its power cable. 😄
Some 'cars' are really big :D
Was it really 55 years ago? Amazing to hear about your experience.
Can you tell us something more that you remember?
Reminds me of those big mining trucks, like the T-282b. The T-282b is powered by TWO diesel generators, one is I think 2,500bhp for the main drive train, and then a second generator producing something around 3,000bhp to operate the dump bed (which can hold 400 TONS of oil sands). If I recall their spec sheet, they average 72 gallons of diesel fuel PER WORKING HOUR. I don't see how solar is supposed to match that, and these trucks are also used to mine the lithium and other precious metals and minerals needed to manufacture solar panels and power cells/batteries. Solar has its uses, but unless we can make incredibly efficient panels, it's a pipe dream of those who don't know what goes into the production of goods.
yep and bucket wheel excavators to, some machines a just to energy demanding to be powered by an engine
The high school I went to in 10th grade actually had a solar panel parking lot cover. Idk how much it was providing but I thought it was a pretty cool idea.
10:32 “I can explain this better. Here:” “COME ON DOWN TO LIL CAESARS”
Another complication is:
The sheer amount of raw material needed to manufacture that amount of solar panels; remembering that mining, and refining/recycling, also produces a lot of emissions.
I'd love to see a VFX video showing the scale of the materials needed w/ how much emission would be released. Highlighting where/how the current supply chain needs to improve in order to achieve net zero emissions. Maybe there is already some cool new tech on the way?
Plus who would pay for all the materials needed?
Exactly this. The amount of energy needed to harvest and create solar panels vs how much energy they produce over their lifetime as well as the battery technology to store that energy is a good video idea. It's an important part of this conversation that wasn't mentioned here, although this is a good video too. But time is a restricting factor, so I get it.
Problem with that line of thinking is that you're forgetting the amount of research and money that goes into increasing the efficiency of gas engines instead of solar generation and storage. If half the effort that goes into harvesting and selling fossil fuels went into solar, we'd already be halfway to full solar power. But no one profits from a free energy source.
Andy seethe
@@Cosmariner so true, the problem of energy/resources used to create renewables is so miniscule of an issue compared to current ones at hand. We can't solve every problem out there but we can certainly move in the right general direction.
"Engineers are like superheroes"
You're a superhero, Wren.
the follow-up video for this is solving and quantifying the recycling of energy storage devices.. 💯🤙
What devices are you interested in? grid storage, car batteries ?
Solar especially rooftop solar on houses and parking lots is great to me, but I still hope nuclear gets a huge boost as well. When including things like thorium and breeder reactors its essentially as inexhaustable as the sun. The two solutions would work very well together.
really really great video Wren
yep
yep
Yep