Net Zero by 2050 is not happening
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 07. 2023
- Our thanks to FE Battery Metals for sponsoring today's video. To learn more about their latest lithium projects, visit their website: febatterymetals.com
🚨 Stock ticker: FEMFF
#NetZero seems nearly impossible. By #2050, demand for some #mineral resources will increase more than 100-fold just to keep up with the supply chains for #electric vehicles.
Support CaspianReport
✔ CZcams membership ► / @caspianreport
✔ Patreon ► / caspianreport
✔ PayPal ► www.paypal.me/caspianreport
✔ Merchandise ►teespring.com/stores/caspianr...
Crypto endorsement
✔ Bitcoin ► 1MwRNXWWqzbmsHova7FMW11zPftVZVUfbU
✔ Ether ► 0xfE4c310ccb6f52f9D220F25Ce76Dec0493dF9aA0
✔ Bitcoin Cash ► 1BKLti4Wq4EK9fsBnYWC91caK7NZfUhNw9
Join us on Facebook or Twitter
✔ Twitter ► / caspianreport
✔ Facebook ► / caspianreport
✔ My equipment and editing software ► www.amazon.com/shop/caspianre...
Watch CaspianReport in other languages
✔ Spanish ► / historiageopol%c3%adtica
✔ Russian ► / thecuriouscat
#ad #sponsored
Our thanks to FE Battery Metals for sponsoring today's video. To learn more about their latest lithium projects, visit their website: febatterymetals.com
🚨 Stock ticker: FEMFF
Why do you work on Sundays?
You have mainly put up a neo liberal logic. We are not going to make net zero, because of ourselves. In order to make it most important factor is our consumption behaviour, our means of transportation and the change in environmental and ecological goals. We already have fallen behind for like 40 years!!! Public transportation is very important to push this through to limit the need of having more cars for every households. Changing all gas/oil driven cars into electric cars is NOT the solution. We also need to make a drastic change in housing! A lot of houses WASTE gas and oil energy for heating because they are NOT ISOLATED enough! And look at those Americans they barely have public transport + their cars are bigger for no fucking reason!!!
+ You also ignore the advances we are making in further science in regards to make more sustainable plants. Power cells are changing, wind turbines are also changing. There is already a new type of wind turbine on the market. This will all lower more and more the need of natural resources.
=> The resources are not the problem we won't make net zero 2050, WE are the problem. Policy makers don't want to keep pushing for more innovation and development. They still take in corporate money to keep filthy corporation into business and this is keeping the ecological markets at bay all across the globe. People are getting misinformed on purpose to keep shitty leaders in place.
+ You totally ignored the fact that nuceair power plants are NOT ecological. Do you forget they emit toxic nucleair waste? Waste radiation that lasts for thousands of years? Waste that we can't process into anything except storing them which also costs money which is also a permanent cost???? For example in Belgium we have to scramble 15 billion euro's to maintain them the coming years! We already had paid billions more even before that. So the more and more of this waste the more and more money we have to keep spending to maintain all that waste. Forgot Tsjernobyl? Fukushima? Toxic nucleair waste is not a fucking joke and totally not ecological. On the contrary, ecology dictates that we need to get rid of them just as we need to get rid of mass carbon emissions.
+ In order for the transition to work, people will have to work together. This means people across nations, states, supranational actors and so on. The energy sector needs to be completely connected. For example Geothermal mass energy plants in the north of europe and mass solar plants in the south of europa. Central Europe focuses on wind and hydro plants and outside the beaches mass wind plants. EU is trying to go for it, but then again you got those filthy lobbyists pushing us regular people off. Eurocrats have become scum embedded with corporate dirtbag politicians.
Your video is too one sided, it barely scratches the surface. Again, that is not why we are not going to make net zero in 2050.
What about solid state battery's? Which either don't require rare earths or require much less than lithium-ion technology. They are already becoming commercial viable with US and China building mega fabs to create them. With work and money being put toward making green tech more sustainable and less dependent on non-recyclable plastics and large quantities of rare earths. At the same time the US hasn't actually checked if deposits of rare earths needed for green tech exists in its borders until recently. Which has shown the US appears to have some of the largest untapped rare earths deposits in the world. Finally, yes I also doubt the 2050 date will be archived for net zero emissions (I don't say net zero alone cause that reminds of the old dial up ISP). With something like 2070's being more realistic.
Its Europe first which has to pay for all the damage it has done to the environment in the last 200 years because of industrial revolution.
At the 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) of the UNFCCC in Copenhagen in 2009, developed countries committed to a collective goal of mobilising USD 100 billion per year by 2020 for climate action in developing countries, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation.
NOT EVEN A SINGLE PENNY GIVEN AS OF NOW
2:58 Careful with misinformation: There are recycling solutions for wind turbine blades, namely crunching it into powder and adding it into cement to produce concrete, reducing the cement needed which reduces also the CO2 emotions rate.
Net Zero is my current bank account
frfr
Is this a no cap or an on god moment?
:(
Then you’re better than me
Bro how you can watch CZcams 😅 internet is also not Free
This is why transitioning to NetZero absolutely requires nuclear power
Nuclear is the only green energy we should be pursuing.
Sadly not enough Uranimium, half of it is exported by Russia. Nuclear power is nice, but being dependent on Russia is not so good...
@@joshhardy5646that’s not true nuclear energy is more expensive than solar, wind and water energy the only reason why it’s good and we should definitely also pursue nuclear is because building the infrastructure for the other renewables takes a lot of time and isn’t as stable, so having nuclear as backup is a must. But nuclear again, is more expensive and has problems for the future with nuclear waste(although that isn’t that big of a deal but still)
@@alvydasjokubauskas2587 We absolutely do have enough material, specifically we will virtually never have to worry about fuel if we do Thorium. It isn't perfect yet, but it is the best long term solution.
@@joshhardy5646 Lots of untapped and underutilized uranium reserves in other countries like South Africa, Niger and many others.
Hey CaspianReport, I appreciate your content as it usually seems genuine and well researched. That said, when taking on a sponsor such as Fe Battery Metals, please include the sponsor at the start of the video, this will ensure that your audience are properly informed of any bias, even if unintended, that the video may contain. I hope you will consider this when going forward. Thanks for the otherwise interesting video!
Agreed!
Our boy Shirvan is all grown up! Feels a little off tbh, but this is the way!
Agreed! I'm a long time follower and I have no issue with you diversifying your income sources. I even gave you a like because I work in the sector and the research is spot on. But, it would have been nice to know that the video was sponsored. It would have provided a more nuanced context to the rest of the content.
Do consider the suggestion. It's an act of good faith. It's a tiny change but I do think it will improve the trust of your viewers in your channel.
agree, this did not feel like a right fit, promoting a stock is not something that you should do on your nice channel!
There was also only a brief mention of the catastrophic environmental impacts of these mines on the local areas and environment as a whole, the exploitative ways countries are getting these mining permits (like the ones in the congo) and it seemed to not take into account technological innvocation in the EV and battery industries that could seriously reduce demand for some of these minerals such as the sodium battery and others. Seemed more like an ad for mining companies than a video about net-zero by 2050.
The blades are mostly fibreglass, which, while not recyclable, can be ground up and used in concrete as a strength in fibre. Very useful as coal used to support that purpose via fly ash.
Just postponing and hiding the problem. Just like plastic recykling... It always end up into the nature in the end.
And recycling technologies in this field make a lot of progress right now.
Thanks for this comment.
they are being recycled now.
Thank you Carl👍
The sponsorship is a bit strange. It's like convincing us to buy the stock of the company.
Yes it's a strange one. If a company is _paying_ to advertise it's stock, that means insiders really want to get out (for some reason). I love Caspian Report but I wouldn't touch this stock with a 10 foot pole.
Almost felt like the video was built around the sponsor.
@@Raphael4722its extremely sketcgy. And it might not be legal.
@@daffyduck780that's the business model of media companies. Think of something to sell the ads and pay everyone's wages and profits.
Totally. Respect points dropped a few for sure...
Carbon offsets are like saying “I’m not fat because there are starving people in the world”.
It's more like an obese person saying "I'm not fat because because I only eat the food of starving people"
@@Anon-xd3cf Americans may be overweight but the US is ranked first in global crop export volume; almost 50% of its total wheat production is exported.
Good job Andrew.
@@andrewwilliams3137 - Its an analogy. Don't take things literally. Were it breaks, is more food is good, but not more CO2.
I disagree with the analogy. With regards to food consumption, a somewhat even distribution is important. One overweight and one underweight person put together are less healthy than two healthy-weight people put together. But when it comes to carbon emissions, the same concept does not hold true. The climate only cares about the total emissions, not about how the emissions are distributed between different people/countries/classes.
Excellent report. Glad you put this information out there. This had been pointed out to me some years ago, but so many people put that person down for being a wet blanket, being negative, etc. when in reality they were being to me accurate and helpful. This is a huge problem that I believe many southern hemisphere countries are waking up to and are getting organized to say, wait a minute, you are throwing us under the bus to "save" yourself and your solution does not work all that well anyway.
🎯
Has anyone given the people, that you know live, in these "sacrifice zones" a vote? or are we already in a dystopian future?
When did people from sacrifice zones ever get a vote? I mean that cynically.
The innocent people of the South Pacific islands already became the example of this precedent. There’s no negotiation.
But seriously, what would they vote on? It is already too late to stop what is coming. The Earth will bake in the summer, storms will be stronger and more unpredictable, millions will die of the heat and flooding. It may become so bad that oceans will be deoxygenated. None of us living now can do a single thing to stop these consequences. We may, however, be able to limit how long the worst effects endure. I doubt we will.
You think developed countries care about the opinions of developing countries?
The general population of those developed countries surely don't. Take tourists from those developing countries you'll here them complain about the garbage and pollution produced in those countries without realizing that the waste from developed countries are being exported to developing countries. E.g. Philippines and canada
People be careful buying stocks based on a video that is sponsored by the company behind the stock, do your own research.
I am so disappointed with that segue. I hope he got paid well..
You don't skip ads? Smh
he started shilling masterworks lol...
Do you not know how sponsorships work? Regardless of a subscription service or stocks, it's a sales pitch to help the creator and the company.
Yeah, sounds like a great piece to fit in my portfolio. 🤣 I already have Established Title, invested in Masterworks and posses a great collection of Japenese Husk knives.
"A machine without energy, is a statue"
We need a bundle of all your quotes man
…no it’s a machine, that’s just superfluous
This quote is from Steve Keen.
I like that one.
Usa dont loose wars,
they loose interests.
@@nicimizoni1687 US interests are pretty tight, not so loose
Yes! I’d buy that book
Now I'm more and more amazed by a horse. . . You can just feed it with grass and it moved. It even letting useful and pretty much harmless byproduct.
oh boy, have you heard of the NY brownstones and why they are brown?
And if you bought a bike, you can move, eat grass, and fart all you want.
Although this video is scary, the answer will be a mixture of mining more but also using less. If every part of the supply chain gets 1% more efficient the result is not 1% less energy used it’s much more than that. A video looking at this side of the equation would be greatly appreciated
If every part of the supply chain gets 1% more efficient, the result is even more consumption.
It's called Jevon's paradox, if you're interested. The solution is no less than a fundamental shift in human nature, which is where pretty much every political and economic system eventually fails.
@@steviejay9245 Well, it depends on how we approach it afterwards. If infinite growth is what we strive for, then you are correct. If somehow that was stopped, then we should absolutely implement more efficient supply chains. Problem is though, all economies currently strive for infinite growth.
@@steviejay9245 I agree that there can be loads of unintended consequences but there are other factors at play pushing the other way, for example the global population peaking and then declining, increased recycling rates, the most valuable companies generally being based on code not resources, the carbon intensity of electricity dropping over, etc, etc.
I really don't understand why our politicians decided to shut down nuclear power plants..
ESGs mate
because Russia wants your country depending on energy from them, so they influenced your politicians and populace into believing it was their own idea.
Because the green parties tend to be more about appearance and good intentions rather than actual solutions.
@@rami8896hat’s not as bad.
The extraction process and human rights for workers are.
You conflate both.
Nuclear energy is overall safer for the environment than burning fossil fuels. To suggest nuclear energy is as bad because of the treatment of workers who’d be working with dangerous radioactive materials, rather than the dangerous toxic chemical’s instead isn’t a sound argument.
Hands down, nuclear is safer and better.
How it’s extracted is a completely different story than it’s efficiency as an energy source
@@rami8896 No way. France is trying to ensure access to minerals. Did you watch the video? That is exactly THE major problem with renewables. Nuclear requires a fraction of resources to build and to run compared to all other alternatives. The mining problem is real but it is not a problem of the nuclear industry in particular. And France is probably one of the fairer players...
The bottom line is that we need much more renewables, but not multiplying capacities by 100 folds, and we need much more nuclear than today, with preferably uranium or thorium from locations such as Australia, Canada or Europe. Mining uranium from seawater is also technically possible by the way (more expensive but still cheap per MWh).
Nuclear is looking pretty darn good atm... Small Modular Reactors can make a huge difference.
czcams.com/video/c0f1L0XUIQ8/video.html
Same with supercritical CO2 turbines. If we stick with steam we are screwed. Can't count on water these days
Someone tell that to the German gov
@@ryanwilliams3857 Lots of water in America's northeast- been raining heavily for several weeks.
SRM look like a good option? Check maybe the building times and cost compared to their estimates...
A comparison between how many fossil fuel minerals we are currently mining and green metals required for transition would be helpful. How many tonnes of rock are churned in each case over X time period?
It's a very complex problem. To look at it in simple terms, I'd say if we're in a hole, it would be better to stop digging. Or if we're lost, try to retrace our steps. But there's little appetite for going backwards, eg to a smaller population or more basic technology.
I completely agree. We need to use less energy, not replace every one of our current systems with renewables.
Energy use directly correlates to gdp. So a reduction in energy use requires our societies to become poorer. In addition, this suggestion also requires that developing nations stop developing and continue to live in poverty.
For a non-specific theoretical outcome.
The whole premise of Net Zero is madness.
@UglyRugby The definition of madness is ignoring the science and an existential crises bearing down on us so that we can be momentarily "richer". The Earth is screaming at us to stop, and our economy depends on the ecology.
It’s really not, we have abundant energy, it’s called hydrogen. Problem is the commercial and practical use of it is not allowed by the powers that be.
@@oahts5906 There are currently 15,000 hydrogen powered vehicles on the road, all in California. It is widely admitted that providing hydrogen to power vehicles throughout the US is going to be a monstrous task; and building the vehicles themselves likewise. Not impossible; but slowly the states (e.g. California and Oregon, among others mandating EVs) are going to figure out that the buying public is not enamoured with EVs. They have their place, but they are not the panacea which has been proposed.
The huge demand for minerals gives a strong argument for building more nuclear power plants.
nuclear plants will be no good if the risk of natural disasters keeps increasing. Either we build now or never. It will be pointless down the line as the risk for Fukoshima type disaster will be much higher.
@@cxngo8124That is simply not true. Weather disasters are almost never lethal to nuclear power. Most dangerous events come from earthquakes or their side effects. We can easily build nuclear energy with near complete safety in areas further from geological activity. The weather is not at all th3 issue for nuclear.
@@Ohnothisisbad we are not talking about now we're talking about 20-30 years. As the ocean warms so do tropical storms, cyclones, hurricanes, flooding etc. What's even worse is we cannot predict what the worst of the storms will be only a general idea of the average strengths so the storms could be way stronger then what we think.
@@cxngo8124 that why we need nuclear, so we can prevent that future
@@franknwogu4911 We do need nuclear, but are we willing to just give 3rd world countries that tech?
Can you do a video on global birth rates?
In places like East Asia, people just cannot afford to have children, and even if they could, they wouldn't have time to raise their children due to the nature of the East Asian work culture and their careers would be negatively impacted.
Governments like Japan and Korea aren't committing to solving the root of the problem, but instead hope that cash incentives will raise births.
I'm using East Asia as an example as that is where the causes of the problem are most extreme.
Shortsighted capitalism in general doesn't want dependents like children or elderly. That's why a "demographic dividend" driven economic boost happens when the bulk of the population is in their 20s to 50s. If traditional elites and corporations had their way, we'd all be single childless migrants that they can move and fire at their convenience (and some countries run on exactly that).
check out the video on East Asian birth rates by Kaiserbauch
@@shzarmai Yep, watched that. It was good although I think it overcomplicates the issue slightly. The reason behind low birth rates is obvious. People can't afford to. Whether in terms of money or time.
That's an extremely tricky subject, as you can't extrapolate birth rates into the future beyond a single generation. It's not a linear trend nor one that can be approximated in any reasonable way (e.g. decline won't continue indefinitely, and the raise won't continue in the current rate either, depending on which country you talk about).
Technology is also a huge factor, as we don't need to do as much now as we did just 10 years ago to achieve the same economic output. Economically decline of the population isn't an issue as long as the advances in technology sustain the current rate.
Cash incentives don't work for increasing the birth rates (as proved several of times already). Increasing access to in-vitro and other medical aids to conception does work, but typically parties that want increased birthrates are also against in-vitro, so there's that...
Historically the best way to increase birthrate is to have a massive war that kills millions, lol, so I can't help but wonder if the people calling for increased birthrates secretly are just a warmongers.
@@J_X999 It's actually the opposite - general trend is that the poorer country is, the higher birthrate it got. The richer country gets, the lower birthrate. Trying to dumb down the low birth rates to "people can't afford to have children" is nonsensical - even hardcore socialist polices like directly giving cash every month for each child you got (e.g. 500+) doesn't produce any increase in birthrates either, all it does is decreasing poverty rates.
Birthrate is not positively correlated with wealth. It's actually the opposite - a negative correlation.
While it's important to remember and account for all the material we need to transition to cleaner power, it is equally important to account for the things we will no longer need that we use now. None of this happens in a vacuum.
You can not make windmills and solar panels without oil.
Hard to believe you're now selling pitching penny stocks
Caspian Report seems to focus more & more on its sponsors in recent videos. Always selling us something. I miss the older content like the country by country analysis
And he's also bought into the pro Ukrainian anti Russian propaganda in regards to the conflict in Ukraine. I guess this is what happens when small independent media channels eventually get too popular and then sell their growth for sponsorships
Turkey and Azerbaijan are not a part of the Global north, but this pan-Turkic propaganda account included them in the thumbnail. This channel is declining rapidly.
Anyone who is sane and values freedoms supports Ukraine. lordy I can’t imagine how sad a person’s life must be if they’re bootlicking Russia 😂
@@magesalmanac6424 Ironically most of the international support for Russia comes from people who blame the ones who bootlick the USA i.e. NATO. As for 'freedom' - Angola, Argentina, Afghanistan, Bolivia, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, Cuba, Congo, Dominican Republic, El Savador, Grenada, Gautemala, Honduras, Iran, Iraq, Laos, Libya, Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan, Vietnam, Yemen, etc. would like to have a word. Have fun looking up all those interventions, and how much 'freedom' they involved.
@@magesalmanac6424 Zelensky is arresting journalists and forcing young Ukrainian men to die for a globalist proxy war. How is that freedom?
I love your work and your insights. In this case you seem swayed by sponsors for mining or distorted analysis. Example, Lithium is unlikely to remain a main feature of EV batteries as Sodium Ion and other types will eclipse Lithium types because of costs, predominately, and better resource use, as the EV production upswing really hits in a few years. The Na types are already hitting the market.
Sorry Shervan, your earlier point on resource scarcity for green infrastructure building applies 5X to nuclear power. Nothing about nuclear power is resource efficient, particularly if you look at the ONLY waste storage facility on the planet about to open in Finland, where every single storage unit has a 5 centimeter thick copper vessel ~4 meters high and 2m across as a component of the permanent storage containment for just one capsule of the planned 10s of thousands. (Cu wasted forever!) This isn't even the power plant, and its containment, this is just the final waste storage. (Wind turbine blade waste is simple by comparison.) NUCLEAR BUILD OUT IS NOT FEASIBLE.
Also for solar, you are making a misleading presentation with the premise that the resource requirements are too great. You forget the construction is the end of the resource extraction for solar and wind. Panels last 30 years and just produce energy sitting there. For our present coal, oil or gas energy infrastructure a continuous supply of fuel must be procured by drilling and mining, and then there is materials use for pipelines, HUGE trucks and mining equipment, tailings ponds, flaring or methane releases, railways, cargo barges and ships, roads, delivery storage, malfunctions, waste, accidents, inadvertent releases, pipeline ruptures, trail derailments, threats of meltdowns or military sabotage, refurbishments and upgrades, corrosion, fires, explosions, pollution, and acid rain mitigation. So you are making an unfair comparison to infrastructure which needs no fuel inputs after construction to those that require ongoing supplies by mining or other resource extraction. Overall environmental degradation goes DOWN with green tech because trillions of tons of mining or other extraction efforts are eliminated!
This is extremely misleading and false... You claim that fossil fuel energy is a greater hit on resources but it's really not, once you build the plant and the infrastructure then all you need to do is mine for the fossil fuels and run power off of that which yeilds a large amount of energy while with solar and wind and other green tech, it costs a lot to build these places while at the same time it generates very little power, in fact in the UK a plot for offshore wind farm got no bids because it was seen as too costly to do due to the current economical situation and it shows that you cant just look at the upfront costs when talking about energy infrastructure and you have to weigh in the costs to it's overall profits long term and Shervan is correct in saying it's just not feasible. You also have to understand that if we go completely electric then everything that uses fossil fuels will have to go electric and will be a huge burden on the power grid, in fact, many EV stations for cars in the UK are closed due to poor infrastructure for this change and we'd need to be generating even more power to facilitate this change but with rising costs and solar and wind farms reliant on the weather, it's just not optimal WITHOUT using nuclear power.
I agree that we need to push off of fossil fuels but the infrastruction isn't there for pure electric meathods without using fossil fuels and the tech is pretty shitty, EV cars have terrible range and need to be filled up far more often than diesel cars and on top of that, not everyone can charge an EV car at home because the infrastructure just isn't there.... Rushed things often come at a huge price and often an ecological one and I bet this will have far reaching implications the same way fossil fuel energy did when it first made the scene or diesel when we were told it was suppose to be better only to be now told it's actually worse.
Eitherway, all of this is pointless when you look at countries that produce the most greenhouse gases, China produces a 3rd of all the worlds greenhouse gases (13.7 billion tons) and they're using more and more each year and they dont care about your Western idealistic views or global warming and they're not alone, India is third (4 billion tons) and right behind the US (6 billion tons) with India is still continuing to rise in its use of fossil fuels while the US is steadily dropping... The point is here that it's unless we can curb China's use and stop India's rising needs because it doesn't matter what we do in the west because China will just replace us and the greenhouse gases will continue to rise around the world.
@@crackajacka87 Thank you for your serious reply.
Let's do your points in reverse. That China and India are in a coal plant build out, and produce lots of greenhouse gases doesn't mean any reductions anywhere don't matter, LESS is LESS, particularly if we are pushing toward an extinction triggering tipping point. Also there is a thing called LEADERSHIP, we could have it and it would matter. I am in the US and our bought out leaders are a problem.
How far do you drive in a day? EV range is pretty substantial, UK is not that big, people get around here, even cross country, but 90% of the time daily mileage is easy to make on our present EV capacity.
Rushed things do have an inherent lack of finesse. But we have had absolute certainty of the effects of increased CO2 since 1980, and the first scientific paper about the dangers to a stable climate of coal burning came out in 1813. If our present actions seemed rushed could be necessity.
So back to those coal plants being built or nuclear plants. The present ones we have are all pretty old, so we will be building new, therefore the savings you implied of only fueling the plants is a mirage. Installations that tap energy reservoirs take less millions of tons of fuel.
Solar is the key, wind has a lot of moving parts. Solar panels last 35+ years, are so stable they can be contractually guaranteed for 80% output at 25 years. The grid and solar farms are the wrong direction, solar on every roof covers already built areas and cuts down transmission losses. The power should be used as DC, saving on inverters losses too.
Again nuclear power would take an incredibly expensive build out, and many years. Solar can go up in weeks. And on structures already built. Solar also breaks the Rich Man's claim to Economy of Scale. Power output scales linearly with area, and any space on my roof is as good as any other before the sun! Thank You
@@philliplamoureux9489 It doesn't matter if some countries lower their emissions if China, India and Russia dont lower theirs... If the US and the EU drop their emissions by 2050 (highly unlikely especially for the US) then that will only drop world emissions (using present data to calculate) by just 20% but China has already risen their emissions in the first quarter of 2023 by 4%... So in 4 months the largest emitter has risen theirs by 4% and that equals a quarter of the emissions the US and EU create which they want to end by 2050... Do you not see the issue here? Also, fun fact, the greenhouse gases emitted that triggered past glacial periods was around 300PPMV (part per million by volume) for CO2 and we sat at 377PPMV in 2004 and we were off the charts then as the safe levels are between 200-300PPMV so we dont just need to reduce emissions but remove them from the atmosphere. Good news though, in the last 50 years temps rose by 1C when temps started to truly rise in 1975 so if nothing changes (no gains or loses worldwide) then we can expect reaching that 3.5C tipping point in another 125 years.
EV cars average around 225 miles before needing to fill up and that will be reduced massively if you speed up on a motorway or highway, the average diesel car averages 550 miles. The best EV car for milage is the Mercedes EQS 450+ that averages 395 miles, still significantly less than the average diesel car and there are a few drivers who have complained and gone back to diesel because they were fed up of having to stop to refill so often and it doesn't help that EV charging stations are no where near as common as petrol or diesel stations are... It's an inconvenience to most and as I stated before, if there's no way to charge your car at home then this issue becomes even more problematic... And I wonder how well these batteries retain charge during cold weather? I know from experience that batteries suck in colder temps and I cant see it being any better for EV cars.
As stated above, we have roughly 125 years before hitting that tipping point and when we do the glacial period will take thousands of years to drop from 3.5C to -8C although we have pumped so much greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that it may take even longer or it might actually never happen because the planet cant deal with it... Tbh, it's an unknown and that scares scientists far more than an actual glacial period because they happen naturally and it's actually odd that we didn't cycle back into another which has been the case for over 500,000 years and for the last 10,000 years we were stable at 0 which is... Odd, an anomaly according to the data, could the advent of humanity be the cause for this? I'd be interested to know personally.
I had a stepdad who is a heating engineer and this has been his job all his life and did a brief spell fitting and installing solar panels to roofs and he said they are absolutely pointless because the costs you'd save in electricity would about equal the cost it was to install after 30 years, now, costs of solar have gone down massively but according to my stepdad then, solar panels would at most just heat up your water to have a single shower per day and he personally saw them as a folly because they generated such a meager amount of energy. Also, they are hampered by the weather, a cloudy or wet day will reduce this power even more and as I live in the UK then they are kinda shit which is why my country pushes for wind more but even that's costly to make and run... Geothermal and nuclear are the only 2 options that can give a country net zero optimally and reliably.
Nuclear does take several years to make their power plants and they are incredibly expensive to build but once operational they last far longer than solar and are relatively cheap to run and generate a large and stable amount of reliable energy... Solar and wind is weak and not as reliable as it relies on perfect weather conditions which aren't always favourable and on top of that, even though solar can last for about 30 years, they actually lose their efficiency over the years and can degrade by 0.5% every year and end up generating 12-15% less power by the end of their lifespan.
FEMFF at $0.1078, from $0.50, for a loss of -77.5% after 9 months
The Nordic countries came of as having low adoption of renewable energy on the graph but that's not the case. I think Sweden met 50% in 2012 and it's over 60% today. They use a lot of hydropower so that's why solar and wind is so low.
Also, what isn't Hydro in Sweden is mostly nuclear. Non-fossile power generation in Sweden is ~90 %. Norway runs a cool 1% fossile fuels, and doesn't even have nuclear.
They are inconsequential in every way to the "climate issue". They and the US could dissappear over night and the climate bs would still occur due to the coal power plants used in India and China.
I don't know country-specific statistics, but you are talking about electricity demand, not energy demand. Worldwide, only 18% of primary energy demand is electricity. That figure might be a bit higher in favour of electricity in Sweden, but all countries depend on food, concrete, plastics and steel, all things that require lots of fossil fuel subsidies without green alternatives that can be scaled up massively, and much of it is imported. Just producing a kg of wheat requires 250 ml of fossil fuel equivalent, and other foods are way higher. And at the end of the day, Sweden is population-wise a small country, with the population of a city in China that most people never heard of.
I highly recommend reading 'How the world really works' by Prof. Vaclav Smil.
@@MA_KA_PA_TIEthe US? 😂😂
@@MA_KA_PA_TIEit's not the USA's problem anymore. This is the problem with the globalists. Much like vegans, they like to shove it down the throat of others.
And this is why it's important to push for more walkable areas well serviced with public transit, and prioritizing more efficient personal vehicles (bikes, electric scooters, etc)
A lot of people want to live in walkable areas, but there's not enough walkable cities (hence why rent is so high)
Exactly but people are still foolish enough to think that going green means putting giant batteries in their cars. We wouldn't need so many resources if we were clever about using them efficiently.
Absolutely! And while we're at it, let's stop making smart phones indispensible for various things and stop making out that everyone has them, making those of us who don't feel the need to get them too. I heard the other day that there are still millions of people in the UK who don't have a mobile or smart phone (I thought I was the only one, lol), so perhaps we should address the elephant in the room that also consumes humungous amounts of rare earths and minerals! :)
The rent is so high because politics is dominated by corrupt socialist eco morons.
@@DevonExplorer Smartphones provide an immense benefit there's no way around that. The pressure is just a natural part of life. It's a powerful computer that has access to the world's knowledge in the palm of you hand. That being said upgradeability is definitely something that should be aimed for. Also smartphone sales have mostly stagnated.
@@KManAbout Yes, of course, I'm not saying we should ban them or anything like that. What annoys me though, is that in many aspects of life you can no longer access certain things if you don't have a smart phone, which I think is insidious. And the fact that they also use these precious metals and rare earths. I honestly don't know what the answer is but maybe there should be more alternatives and stop trying to force everyone into into using them. Thanks for your reply. :)
The only answer is to completely abandon the idea that economic growth must continue at breakneck speed, and to abandon the delusion that global economies must evolve into consumer economies.
Unfortunately, that's a multi-polar trap. Any country that defects on the agreement to retard economic growth will get a massive advantage on those that remain honest. Thus no one will adhere to such an agreement. Until all nations, and the factions and corporations within those nations, figure out a way to trust each other, such a deal will never come to fruition.
@@steviejay9245quantum AI running a one world government will take care of that
@@steviechampagnewith 100%controle over humans. No thanks not a world i Would like to live in.
@@steviechampagne That relies on thousands of men who have been pursuing power their entire adult lives willingly giving it up. Good luck.
One thing that could alleviate the resource problem somewhat is LFP batteries which are already the standard in China. Iron is basically infinitely abundant. So is lithium, theoretically it’s really just sand, the challenge is in processing it into spodumene. That’s a challenge for sure but we have more than enough reserves
Surely you mean that silicon (or perhaps glass) is really just sand, not lithium. Lithium is fairly scarce, and the usual source for it is evaporite deposits on dry lake beds, not sand. Silicon is a very common material, and sand is a reasonable source, but it's fairly difficult to process and a lot of waste is generated in the process.
@@bobbun9630, It costs less to extract lithium from subsurface water in salt flats, which are located in Chile, Argentina, Tibet and Nevada, but there are limited salt flats in the world where this can be done. In contrast, there are many places in the world where you can extract lithium from spodumene and lepidolite, but it requires much greater use of energy in the processing, so it costs more. Because Chile is putting more restrictions on extraction, and the salt flats in Tibet and Nevada are mostly used up, and the extraction costs are too high in Bolivia, lithium extraction is increasingly moving to spodumene mining in Australia, which now produces half of the world's lithium. However, there are many new lithium mining projects opening up around the world, which is why the price of lithium has fallen rapidly over the last year.
I'm glad you're upfront about this being a sales pitch.
Yeah. I liked the transparency.
@@kingace6186/s = (sarcasm)
Is it though? The video is about the challenges of finding the resources necessary for net zero. If it were a propaganda piece, it would be "Net Zero is destiny! Buy stock in battery companies!"
That's part of the story. What he said about minerals and energy blindness is a legit topic that is not talked bout much, yet it is extremely relevant for the coming decades.
Nuclear power is still the safest, converting older fossil fuel reactor plants to nuclear would be the bet choice of time consuming and cost svaing
Except Uranium is still a mineral resource and plagued with resource imperialism and human rights abuses. for example what france is doing in mali
Counter arguments czcams.com/video/c0f1L0XUIQ8/video.html
@@zizkovhoodmoments1590so we just do nothing ig??? Every resource has terrible stuff like that
Not saying it’s a good thing btw I wish it wasn’t a thing but bro that’s unavoidable with how corrupt companies are
@@zizkovhoodmoments1590 Just waiting around for some perfect solution with absolutely no downsides to anyone to materialize is a recipe for true disaster. Even the mande people would probably prefer to have uranium mines rather than famines and extreme droughts caused by runaway greenhouse effect.
Thank you Shervan. Always enjoy watching your analysis!!!
The quality of your videos are amazing. The way you made your graphics is refreshing
War is labor intensive, cost intensive and resource intensive, and yet we always managed to do that
At tremendous economic costs everytime. Would you volunteer your country to shoulder those costs?
If you do it right you save quite a lot of money on not being subjugated.
While it's a net negative in terms of social cost/externalities, war is also _very_ profitable for manufacturers of weapons, ammo, vehicles, etc. Given Keynesian fiscal policy has never stopped since World War 2 with respect to foreign policy budgets, Lockheed, Raytheon, and the rest of the military industrial complex have basically been getting free lunches nonstop from the US government for over 80 years, propped up by Congress and the Fed even in lean times when most other industries (except energy, agriculture, and finance, maybe a couple others) get cut off from the easy money and domestic social spending gets slashed.
Exactly
@@discountchocolate4577 do remember to take account that there are social advancement that are rooted from outcome of war, some of them includes slavery abolition from the US Civil war and woman's suffrage from WW1, also do take into account that the needs of military also provides positive outcome on technological advancement outside military needs or weaponry industry that extends to the proliferation of general society from the ruins of war such as food canning from napoleonic war, antibiotics and blood plasma in WW1, radar and rocketry in WW2 and GPS & the Internet from Cold War
This is why I’m pro-nuclear energy
Sure, but try and sell the public on nuclear.
I'm not pro-nuclear, but I acknowledge its necessity
@@TubersAndPotatoes then you have to be pro-nuclear lmao...it's not like these are pokemon cards or something. we're not picking it because it's cute we're picking it because it works.
Lots of commenters are but would you invest your own money into nuclear?
@@Parker307 If the public would allow it to happen and not drag it down with a thousand paranoid conspiracy theories, yes.
It's pretty obvious that there will be much less personal vehicles if we switch to BEVs. Public transit has to be developed.
5:43 This is the stupidest map I've seen since I read "Clash of civilizations".
This is why nuclear and hopefully fusion power by 2050 will solve at some of the problems mentioned here.
Yes.. but nuclear War before ☢️
Counter arguments czcams.com/video/c0f1L0XUIQ8/video.html
@@Neobeesthat would definitely improve on net zero goals. Take a few million humans out, the issue will be alleviated for a while. Go FULL Mutually-Assured-Destruction, and net zero will be achieved far quicker than any other way.
@@mrD66M Source MiT 1972
Meadows Check The Graph 📉
Just few more years...
I support Net Zero by 2500.
Why the rush?
I support Imperium of Mankind by 40000.
I support net zero by 2025 if it was possible. The earlier the better but it is unlikely we will even achieve net zero by 2100.
@@TheBobVovaYes, we need it. But we don't have any Aliens.
@@TheBobVova😂😂
We would have been at net zero in the 20th century if not for all the anti-nuclear power plant spergs.
12:42 A machine without energy is a statue; a body without energy is a corpse.
Wireless charging from space based solar arrays beamed down is the future of energy and won't need as much unnecessary infrastructure and resources
Another way to say that is "I want gigantic solar death rays pointed down at me from space at all times."
Contemplating this makes me want to found the Kessler-Ludd Party. Our party logo will be a satellite exploding into shrapnel after a high-speed collision with a wooden shoe.
Dude that ad at the end was shady af. Getting paid to advertise investments has the potential to cause harm to your subs.
This has turned into a pan-Turkic propaganda account. What did you expect?
Among the several thing left off in the discussion (such as nuclear) is that corruption is a huge problem in some of the countries we "need" resources from...that will complicate things.
How many nuclear power plants have been built and brought genuinely into action in the last 15 years since the 2008 financial crisis?
@@Marvin-dg8vj Not enough. There is plenty of promising tech out there to make nuclear more efficient,, more powerful, and cheaper but no one invests in it. If we want cheap green energy, nuclear is the future.
@@hermaeusmora2945 there are none.
It seems to have failed
@@Marvin-dg8vj That's a trick question considering the fact that we rarely build new reactors, but instead continue to use ones built in prior decades or merely extend said existing ones. Also, what an odd time frame to bring up, because even in that time frame, according to the IAEA PRIS, over 200 gigawatts of nuclear energy has been added between 2008 and 2015
@@Marvin-dg8vj We have reactors in construction, but we mostly upgrade and modify existing ones which is an intention inherent in the design. Why do you lie and spread misinformation on the internet?
As an Australian, dump waste in Australia, we don't use over 90% of our land and probably never will.
It's clear that we won't make it if we don't change our consumption and growth expectations.
Finding the most adequate energy mix is only one side of the problem, and I'm getting tired of all the tech enthusiasts (which I am) that think tech will eventually solve everything.
We also need to fire those st*pid economists who put growth as an input in their models and tell us it will keep on going.
Yes, but currently economies are structurally dependent upon growth. Our current economic arrangements also get their social legitimacy from offering a better future (through growth) to everyone. The question of the inequality of wealth distribution probably becomes much more important without growth. Japan seems to have managed OK over the last few decades without much growth - although it is less unequal than most countries.......
@@johnsawdonifyExcept Japan and China is currently having a headache because they don't have the population growth to support the growth based infrastructure they built.
It's imperative to not live in the delusion of infinite growth and modify infrasture to account for change in demography and shrinking of population. Currently, countries that didn't do it are banking on imported labour or immigration, which creates a host of other problems and isn't really a long term sustainable solution.
Maintainance and upgrading of infrastructure should also consider sometimes dissolution of it to take into account demographic shift, rather than hurting for demography that fits infrastructure. An aging population would mean more investment in more accessible street and public transport. More nursing homes, more nurses, more service based industries to fit their need. Some areas will for sometime look more like retirement destinations and those places should be like them until the demography of young population climbs up again.
@@johnsawdonify Our current economic arrangements also lose their social legitimacy by destroying any hopes of a better future through its growth imperative.
If your economic system makes a good life impossible, you've got a shitty economic system.
@@MrRoyalChicken Perhaps. I am not commenting on whether I regard the current economic system as just or in some sense morally legitimate...I think it is probably neither. And perhaps it will lose its political/social legitimacy in the wake of the climate crisis.
@@johnsawdonify Sociology and economics are an extremely bad mix and will stump growth, not gain it, which is why major companies that push these political social views have all struggled. The inequality of wealth is just an excuse to give certain groups more power over others and the data shows this with most college drop outs or not getting into college now white males and those that struggle to find work now being white males because companies are incentivised to hire based on skin colour, gender and sexuality and have become overtly discriminatory. This argument about fighting for the disadvantaged was the same one Adolf used when he claimed the Jews had all the power and were discriminating against the native Germans and that they should be replaced... Dont fall for the same traps that tyrants use to gain more power and influence and dont mix social issues with economics because it never ends well... Look what Mao did as an example.
We don't need the amount of energy we're using. There are companies wasting energy for no good reason. Just as an example, so many offices and stores, etc. keep their lights on 24/7 to "prevent robberies"
Right!? This kind of thing is so wasteful and damaging, yet no one questions it.
@@ryanstephen6163the U.S. federal government has been pushing energy efficiency since the Carter Administration lol. Go read up on the crazy progress we’ve made in efficiency
4 points:
1) This is considering all things being equal to today, but by the looks of it the material requirements for core renewable technologies will change. See sodium ion batteries, permanent magnet free EV motors, cheap iron nitride magnet wind turbines, non-cell based batteries etc..
2) Energy and material requirements will shrink when switching away from fossil fuels. Only around one third of the energy in fossil fuels is actually used productively. Since electricity comes close to 100% efficiency in many applications, that means we only need to replace that third. And you have to consider what industries will disappear, thus freeing up their resource demand for other industries.
3) In general we should be discussing from an energy return on energy invested perspecitve (ERoEI). Fossil fuels work so well because their ERoEI is extremely high. No matter the materials used, if the ERoEI for renewables never comes close to that, the transition will make us vastly poorer.
4) Energy = prosperity. There is no such thing as a low energy + rich country, that relationship will probably hold. So overall energy production reduction should be completely off the table.
Yes, thanks for the write up. I think assuming that nothing will change innovation wise pretty naive.
@@Twiggorizedit’s hard to predict the future when you’re talking about new innovations and inventions that shorten the time of something. Like no one could have correctly predicted the end date of kennedy’s moon speech, given that there were newly discovered ideas and technologies to address important things prior to launch and landing.
It’s like Apple’s first iPhone demonstration, and it being on a partially functional iPhone model that may or may not crash mid-presentation. It didn’t crash at all, but it definitely could have.
Kennedy’s speech wouldn’t have been prophetic, had the landing been 2 years late
@@TwiggorizedI think it's naive to expect efficiency to rise 10-fold in every domain without examining the issue. Take solar panels: you can maybe make them 10% more efficient, but beyond that you run into the limitations of the underlying physics of the technology. There is literally no way around that.
I recommend David Macay book "about renewables with the hit air". Great read, very informative!
@@Twiggorized It reminds me of the Malthusian trap. All things being equal can only give you an upper bound on cost, realistic estimates have to consider observed technological growth patterns.
@@ten_tego_tegessame with smaller processor chips. It can only get so small before it’s physically impossible to do anything
Unless we work with sub atomic particles to do what atoms can’t, there’s never going to be smaller chips. Maybe larger microprocessors or numerous microprocessors working simultaneously.
As is often the case in these videos about expanding green energy, nuclear energy stands as an important component, at least in the short term, to making a green energy grid much more feasible. Thank you for the exploration of the necessary base products and facilities to make green energy possible.
God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
3:00 when calculating the materials requirements for replacing a gas turbine with wind or solar, remember that to compensate for the "renewable source" variability (and inability to produce at some times of the year), you also need a massive amount of either overcapacity (up to three times as much nameplate power production), or grid scale battery backup. In addition, the renewables require a significant amount of extra long distance copper transmission cables, since they typically have to be sited where the sunshine or wind is best - and where land is cheap, which is usually far away from where the people live. Finally, if you try to really scale up production of electricity to replace services provided by fossil fuels in industry and transportation, the additional solar and wind production facilities will have to be built further and further away from cities and in more marginal locations, ie. with lower marginal output, longer transmission distances, and higher costs.
The materials estimates given for replacing conventional power are probably lowballs.
On the other side of the equation, when calculating the materials cost for a 50MW gas turbine one probably shouldn't assume that the gas that's being burned automagically arrives on site with no material overhead (e.g. drilling rigs, pipelines, ships, and the energy required to run the entire shebang, day in, day out). Additionally, when commenting on videos it might be considered advisable to have a grasp of the basics first: "...extra long distance copper transmission cables..." ROFL. Because that's exactly what's used in transmission lines. Copper. (/s). Brief mention goes to ignoring pumped storage and hydrogen as energy stores in favour of solely mentioning batteries, and suggesting that costs increase as one gets further from cities - pretty much the complete opposite of reality.
As a final thought, if a modern wind turbine is rated at ~12MW why does the video's creator say it requires 15 of them to replace a 50MW gas turbine? Hmm, maybe the people whose job it is to look at these things have already considered such 'trivial' things as capacity factors in their calculations...
@@whibla4738 re Pumped storage: it's great, but very difficult to expand capacity significantly, and certainly not at the scale required. Similarly for hydrogen as an energy storage: it's technically possible, but incredibly inefficient (something like 25% round trip energy recovery), and introduces a bunch more challenging engineering problems. The video was likely focusing on lithium Ion batteries simply because that is where the market and government policies are currently focused - because the engineering is known and in use. There are very likely to more cost-effective grid-scale power storage solutions available in future, and we really NEED better grid battery solutions that do not use massive amounts of metals, but none are currently commercially available and known to be reliable - yet.
Note re the wind turbine comment: fossil fuel power stations operate on demand, gas-powered turbines can be run all the time or spun up when production from other sources are unavailable, so the 50MW is very reliable. By contrast, a 12MW wind turbine output is only intermittently producing power, and not necessarily when you need it. So, you need MORE of them distributed over a wider area to try compensate for low wind periods, at least in the absence of grid-scale battery backup. Keep in mind that California has something like 2 minutes worth of battery backup. There is much much less of it actually deployed than is needed, because it is expensive, and usually not factored into the costs of providing wind (or solar) power.
@@whibla4738 BTW, if you DO have battery backup of some sort for your wind turbine, you need additional turbines to provide power to the backup system. Let's assume that you have a decent site where the turbine produces nameplate power 75% of the time (sometimes either having low winds for less or no power, or occasionally having to be shutdown if there is a storm with too much wind). Then to get your full 12MW rating, you need another third of a wind turbine. Now, 75% of the time, you will have some power (a third of a turbine's rated power) going to the backup system. (You may want more than just a third of a turbine for redundancy of course.) That's fine as long as you only have short lulls without wind that your battery can actually cope with. If your location has occasional LONG periods with no wind, you may need a larger battery and additional turbines to charge it up.
Extra turbines can't be stacked on top of each other, so need cabling to connect to the grid (and backup system) of course. That's for a steady demand, and does not factor in peak power requirements, or situations where some energy sources in the grid are offline for maintenance, which are also factors that may require overbuilding capacity.
(Solar power has much greater variability between seasons and day/night cycles, so requires much more battery and much greater capacity overbuild.)
It would actually take about 20 of them to replace a 50MW gas turbine. 12 MW wind turbines are rated at maximum capacity, NOT average daily output. They product only about 25% of time. Power for storage considering inefficiencies brings required wind turbines to about 20.
@@whibla4738
Thank you for raising awareness on this issue. If you guys are interested, I recommend this book called Bright Green Lies by Derrick Jensen, Max Wilbert, and Lierre Keith. There is a phenomenon called Jevon's Paradox. Jevon's Paradox states that as tech gets more efficient, we use it more, leading to overall increased energy use. Dennard's Scaling is about how as transistors get smaller, their power usage remains the same while their performance improves, allowing for better, more energy-efficient computers. Moore's Law is related: it's the observation that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles about every two years, indicating rapid tech advancement. But now, as we're hitting the physical limits of miniaturization, Dennard's Scaling is breaking down, and Moore's Law is slowing. The combo of Jevon's Paradox and these tech limits mean we need to find new ways to keep advancing computing power without skyrocketing energy use. There is no way out here. Learn farming, plumbing, and other useful skills that make you a more useful human being without consuming more resources or be dependent on the overall economy.
The used solution to Jevon's paradox is AI or automation of controls. The point is reducing energy use thanks to choices on enegy system's controls taken by an inteligent systems and not by human perception.
Worth remembering that we're just starting the transition.
Meanwhile the 90/10 rule says that after we'll reach 90% renewable we'll have to spend 9 times the effort to complete the remaining 10%.
It's 80/20 rule. Aka lowhanging fruit. Aka diminishing returns.
@@Michael-jx9bh Both exist. ;) 90-10 is also known as 90-90 rule.
The transition is off to a sluggish start but we will get there eventually. We don’t have much of a choice!
@@SkywalkerWroc You mean,
"The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the expected time.
The remaining 10% takes the _other_ 90%."?
@@magesalmanac6424
It will never get there and we do. It is uneccessary and diverting resources that could be put to better use.
It seems strange that a company with a $16 million market cap is putting its resources into advertising its stock ticker. Seems like a lot of resources just to hope to acquire some more liquidity.
How about we stop building cars like fuck I think we have enough
Engineering with Rosie has a great video debunking the myths related to the "unrecyclable wind turbine blades"
Oh! I had no idea she did such a video. Thanks. Maybe I'll learn more about this topic because I certainly need an update.
Rosie is a marxist
Literally. A lot of them can be mechanically recycled and those that can't can be chemically recycled via pyrolysis
@@PapaphobiaPictures the cost and energy required is what makes them "unrecyclable" not just the difference between the material being thermoset vs thermoplastic
@2MinuteHockey yeah I know those are the excuses but they're stupid excuses and highlight the fact that the profit motive and Capitalism are the reason we're not going to achieve Net Zero, not an inability to do so
Of course not. Whoever thought that would be happening with a growing population and still half of it in poverty is just delusional.
Global population will start fall in 30 to 50 years
Ok, first of "only" 24 procent of the population is in poverty. Secondly the world's population is going to drop real fast in a couple of years and at last we will fix climate change. Get your facts right
Global populations are mostly in decline due to a reducing birth rate. Even in africa and asia. Especially in asia actually.
@@ScubesFTW It will probably stabilise at 10 billion and then start going down.
@@ScubesFTW not in Asia or Africa
This is a fantastic intellectual version of the dude with the sandwich board yelling 'The end is Nigh'
We all know he's right, but we keep on ignoring it all the same.
Little corrections:
2:42 wind trubines have a capacity factors of roughly 25% (20% on shore, 35% offshore), so u will need 60 wind tubines (3.25MW) to replace one gas turbine(50MW). Both have a avaibility factor of roughly 90%.
The rule of thumb I've been using is 1/3 wind turbine capacity for well situated wind farms for an estimate of yearly output and 1/5 the capacity of solar electric panels. Solar electric panels are really only good for charging batteries for grid quality power where wind turbine farms do much better, but I wonder if the jumbled output power of a wind farm is culled to something lower to be something more consistent before being further conditioned with base load power. If that is the case it might be more realistic to use 1/4 the power capacity of wind farm as a yearly average. It makes little sense to make a wind turbine able to work in a 100 kph wind which it would only see during a huge storm just so it can claim a huge wind energy generating. capacity. Wind energy goes up with cube of the wind velocity, that's V^3.
@@douglasengle2704 onshore germany average 2022 was 23%, austria was 17%. Solar PV in Austria is 12%. Solar is more predictibel and online during daily peak demand, so it needs much less storage.
@@krautergarten4529 The real averages at practice levels for fuel savings of solar and wind electric energy are not as of now readily available. The erratic nature of solar voltaics makes them requiring instant makeup the if not charging batteries or similar requires fast reacting generating plants that have to run at such a high state of readiness they are not saving much fuel when having to make them at grid quality. That is why Tesla strongly insists on supplying their solar roofs with a power wall battery storage system.
the world changes really fast every decade its too early to be pessimistic about it.
an great example is massive fall prices of solar panels this last decade
Not just solar panels. Wind turbines batteries etc. And those costs are set to continue the rate of falling this decade.
By 2030, it will be economic lunacy to not utilise solar and storage. No more fossil fuel plants will be built. By capacity it's already at 95 percent rate of renewable power being constructed.
On top of this there will be innovation in NaCl, solid state, and vanadium batteries.
The world won't reach net zero by 2050, but it will be well on its way.
The key will be maintaining it and having robust recycling infrastructure to recoup metals. The tech exists now, but we will need to lose our throw away culture.
One thing is price, other thing is innovation, innovation can't get infinitely better, its not possible
solar panels and wind turbines require us to destroy the earth with 3rd world mining practices. They do not last for more than 8 years on average, and they pollute the biosphere with microplastics as they are broken down by erosion, and they are hazardous to ornery and sea life during operation.
We can not recycle them. The materials are spent on use. What a lucrative and polluting business this green lie is.
I get what you mean but the issue is materials not so much price since the reason why inefficient green energy is pursued at all is gov money after all (Take that free market!)
@@celeridad6972 all energy is gov subsidised since it relates to national security. Green energy is far more efficient than fossil fuel considering the free input energy. It is other issues. But it certainly not the only reason green tech is pursued
Binary cycle geothermal seems like one of the best ways to move towards carbon neutrality. It assists with base loads and are much more economical to implement vs. SMNRs
Geothermal isn't a silver bullet.
Geothermal is way too situational to work as baseload at most cases. Relatively few places are suitable for it - a need for volcanically active AND stable bedrock is a must here. Not to mention a need of relatively complex and non-modular technology that requires a lot of customization based on various characteristics of the location.
That being said, we still need to scale it up whenever it's possible because some geothermally active regions have unworkable solar and wind potentials (given the current state of their technologies) to begin with (cue Southeast Asia and parts of Congo/Cameroon).
@@lontongstroong Thanks for the feedback, you are referring to traditional geothermal and not binary cycle geothermal which is not tied to fault lines and hence the location concern goes away.
Binary cycle pushes cold water into the earth’s crust to a depth of around 3km and then it comes out at around 70 Deg. C, from there it is run through a heat exchanger where the thermal energy is transferred to a fluid with a low flash point which then flashes to a gas and in turn is used to drive a turbine.
Canada has one such plant in the making with lots more on the way.
@@DSteyn86 I think that technology would be constrained by the capital investment of the drilling. It might be even far less modular than the conventional geothermal, which might make it unsuitable for most solar parks, unless the scale of the intermittent plants it is coupled with is large enough.
Shall it reach maturity, the deep-bore geothermal might be good enough to stand on its own given the scale of its production, with exceptions above.
@@lontongstroongSeveral companies are currently doing pilot testing on using plasma drills which is more efficient and cheaper than rotary drills.This will reduce capital investment on drilling once the plasma drills are available on the market.
This is certainly an inconvenient truth, isn't it?
5:08 this isnt completely fair, there has also been a increase in energy efficiency, climate awareness, and general efficiency
Solar/wind has crappy energy density, needs too much land and materials. It has a role to play, but we should focus on hydro and nuclear.
Solar/wind while being crap is cheaper than nuclear. Hydro is prefered where its feasible, but otherwise it makes currently more sense to build solar and wind. This might change if the material procurement increases the price of the powerplants.
@@imilegofreak only cheap if you ignore costs of storage, transmission, and land. It really needs those things so it's not cheap if you need a non trivial amount of energy solar/wind.
@@ninefox344solar and Wind are cheap alternatives for small communities and countries. But for larger countries, I agree.
@@imilegofreak No. It is so much more expensive to build the mega farms of Solar/Wind that produce electricity on par with a nuclear reactor. Do not let subsidies and short-term prognostication hoodwink you into believing solar and wind is cheaper than Nuclear. It is not.
Well we can just use both in places where these energy sources will be most efficient, correct? Focus on certain things at certain places.
As long as China, India and the USA do not drastically reduce pollution , there will never be a net zero.
China has decarbonised half its electricity grid.
Net zero is so stupid 😂
Its Europe first which has to pay for all the damage it has done to the environment in the last 200 years because of industrial revolution.
At the 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) of the UNFCCC in Copenhagen in 2009, developed countries committed to a collective goal of mobilising USD 100 billion per year by 2020 for climate action in developing countries, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation.
NOT EVEN A SINGLE PENNY GIVEN AS OF NOW
and they can't. They are too bug for that.
@@aditya21210 Aaaaand we're back to why this problem persists. Not saying you're wrong, just saying nobody is fully responsible for this mess. Borders don't matter to mother nature.
Solar thermal may be less scarce resource intensive than PV, though it doesn't appear to be the preferred technology at the moment.
We're DOOMED.
Shilling for penny stocks? Disappointing.
Come for the geopolitics. Stay for the skepticism.
Eh, he pointed out it was a commercial. It's a warning.
It's capitalism, people need money. He made it clear.
@@recoil53 yeah but advertising a stock, wouldnt benefit the company, if they are not willing to put a lot of more stocks on the market in short time, this seems like an extract strategy and they needed liquidety, to get out.
@@recoil53 no dude. advertising your own stocks is a scam, because it shows they just want money. the way it's suppose to work is that you actually provide or produce something. this company hasn't made a single battery worth of lithium yet and doesn't intend to. it's a scam, calling it capitalism and saying it's kosher is like saying an assassination is kosher because it's just a job.
The sponsor for this video looks really dodgy
Nobody in the first world wants to give up the high standard of living
Brazil is a Green country with the best energy matrix among the large economies
I'm glad that you made this video. As much as I would like to see the world go green, I think that not enough thought is being put into what it will take to get there, and thus we come up with "band-aid" solutions that seem to address the issue, whilst doing little to practically solve the underlying issues.
Did you even bother to read IEA reports?
@@simeonlaplace6495 Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I'm not saying that no-one is thinking of these issues, I'm saying that this rush to "go green" from a variety of sources, OFTEN (NOT ALWAYS) does not take into consideration the impact that renewable energy will have on the planet in terms of the minerals and plastic that it will take to get us there.
@@skiesboiI agree, a lot of this seems like corporate talk to make themselves seem like they’re helping the environment. It’s just really horribly thought out and a stupid idea to think that it could work for all countries.
@@skiesboi So you did not read them.
of course, the underlying issue being overpopulation. if we could get the earths population down to something more sustainable, like say 1 billion, then we could 'save' the earth. of course, nobodies going to go for that(openly. im sure our dear enlightened leaders have already realized this and are moving us that way) because that would require massive famines and/or an absolute bloodbath of untold proportions.
Infinite growth and net zero cannot mix.
Nobody is advocating for infinite growth.
Socialist lie.
It can if you use nuclear energy, instead of stone age horsesh*t like wind mills and solar panels.
Spot on. You could argue we're currently seeing the limits of growth now
We just need to redesign economy around biomass. Resources for growth of biomass are still abundant.
@@simeonlaplace6495 right ... this doesnt sound like an great idea at all, we could use every field to grow corn to make methane and still it wouldnt be enough, besides that we still need the space ... for growing food
This is a testament as to why we need to restructure North America cities to be less car dependent. We simply don’t have the resources for everyone to have an EV, we need walkable cities with good public transit.
Additionally for heating we should explore technologies like district heating
Honestly, I appreciate the transparency with the video and the sponsor.
What about reforesting? Has anyone considered how we could benefit from recreating forests in countries like Spain & Egypt? Iirc, Those countries apparently used to have pretty mild to tropical forest conditions before the first anthropological shift.
How would u return them
The main problem is greed, the people with the authority and funds to do that are benefiting off destruction. They also will be the only ones to live comfortably in the future, so even when thing’s completely fall apart they will be relatively safe. So what is motivating them to do anything besides public image, which doesn’t mean much for ruling class.
Countries like the US and Canada have irreversible land use problems. We have massive suburban parks, large highways and use land for economic uses like cash crops. There’s just too much land here that’s been bought and repurposed.
There's a lot of research on this and data from real-world projects. It's a complicated topic and you need to take many things into consideration. For example, if an area that reflects a lot of sunlight back into space (like a desert) is replaced by forest, it may very well absorb more energy and thus have a negative impact on global temperature. In any case, it's a quite interesting topic and I can recommend looking up videos from science-minded channels.
@@prosandcons-fl2ccboth countries have hundreds of billions of trees, we need to force Western European countries to get back to a certain percentage of forests cover
A recent issueof the MIT Technology Review has an article "How sodium could change the game for batteries". There will always be a demand for lithium, but there are also alternatives.
You know "Energy dome Italy" ? Nice. Nothing rare used.
@@jean-pierredevent970 Looks like a cool idea :)
yes not like solid batteries are also big in coming
Very interesting video. Fossil fuel energy mainly uses oil, gas coal but renewable energy isn't just magically run on sunlight it requires a lot of minerals/metals. I guess in any case countries like Australia, Russia, Brazil, China etc are well place. Countries lacking in either fossil fuels or these minerals/metals are probably going to have bad time.
It sort of reminds of that game Mega Lo Mania, once you run out of your primary resources you use your second resources and whatnot. Some of the the secondary resources can help you build more high tech but if you are lacking a certain resource you don't access to certain technologies.
It's true that green energy hardware requires a lot of raw materials to build. However this video does not talk about the resources required to supply fuels to conventional power stations which is needed to do a proper comparison. It also does not consider that a lot of the resources can be recycled at the end of use.
The fossil fuel industry is also a vast consumer of raw materials, and producer of toxic waste, and requires massive energy inputs to transport the fuels around the world.
I'd also add that a 3-4MW turbine is not a great starting point. 15MW turbines are currently being installed offshore in Europe. These are much more resource efficient that smaller turbines.
I’m not convinced about how much more the material requirement is for renewables va. Non renewables. It seems it’s always comparisons between all materials moved and mined for renewables vs. coal fed into a coal plant per peak kw. That fails to compare that to get the coal, you also move an incomprehensible amount of earth, and that once you’ve used it, you need more. A tonne of of coal is gone once you burn it. A tonne of solar panels is still there 10, 20,30 years later. Distributed networks can also use less copper, steel and aluminium where use is close to the source.
My thoughts exactly. The gas turbine generator used in video as comparison didn't mention the materials used to extract said gas. 👍
kudos! nice to see logic :D
what u may not know is that fossil fuels lose 2/3 between input and output. Models tell us to match the input, so we'll need 1/3 of those numbers, plus economies of scale etc and new tech is ongoing and constant. Theres counter-arguments to everything he said. This channel is a good start czcams.com/video/udJJ7n_Ryjg/video.html
It’s a matter of scale. Renewable energy requires more units to have the equivalent generation to non renewable. While yes non renewable requires another resource input for generation it doesn’t require a comparable amount of input. Like said in the video, renewable problem is a lack of technology to make it reasonably viable and profitable
Nuclear power is another path to net zero emissions
@@alexiel4406renewable are profitable. They are currently the most economically efficient form of power generation.
I've stopped watching on gas turbine example. It's a total BS. You compare complete energy production solution with wind and solar farm to just a gas motor (turbine) neglecting all of the support infrastructure - generators, buildings, gas mining, pipes, LNG ships and ports. And the bad consequences of the exhaust of the gas turbine. But the main fault of reasoning is the fact, that after you build the wind and solar power plant, you need nothing more to get electricity. Wind and sun are for free. For gas turbine, you have to mine gas and provide it every minute for the next 50 years of the lifecycles of both sample powerplants.
Actually, for green economy we need 2/3 of energy and mining of the current economy, bc the current one is so inefficient.
You can close millions of coal, oil, gas mining sites, in place of the few new silver mines. BTW - these are usually copper mines, as silver is a byproduct there.
Right? I was so confused what he is trying to tell me here. Of course you cant compare those two things if one is finished already and the other one not. Also isnt the industry around wind and solar energy "younger" so they dont have these cheap supply chains as all of the fossil fuel economy...
You have no idea what you are talking about. Go protest how evil nuclear power is like the rest of the climate cultists by getting crushed by 18 wheelers. Wind, Solar and Hydro require huge maintenance costs and create more pollution. Your ignorance is laughable.
Solar panels are virtually maintenance free, but wind turbines are mechanical. Nothing free about massive spinning blades connected to a gearbox.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD As if a gas turbine is not mechanical.
I had hoped the presentation was accounting for that, but this is a good example of why it's hard to come to an agreement on course of action. It's very difficult to account for all the factors accurately and without bias.
There are many inaccuracies here: the extraction figures do not account for recycling. Re: turbine blades - the 'non-recyclable' blades are being replaced overtime. The demand for energy, while increasing, will not increase at the previous rate or more. Also, the increasing recognition of the 'circular economy' has not been acknowledged. I do accept though that things are bleak
Decarbonizing does not equal net zero. Net zero means your carbon output is offset by your non carbon activities making a net zero outcome. Carbon is always going to be part of the equation - it’s not about deleting carbon only offsetting it’s effects so ofcourse we can’t expect to Decarbonize everything.
Additionally I appreciate the highlight of the completely true issues stemming from the renewable energy industry as mentioned like sacrifice zones and green minerals - I believe this is another avenue for increased global inequality hence why there is somewhat of a race to be renewable energy exporters rather that importers and facilitators.
Another great vid!
We should be able to question whether infinite economic growth is the best long-term plan.
Continuous invention is necessary and it's usually supported by economic growth. I think infinite economic growth is not the main problem, distribution of wealth is.
@@fubytv731 Fair point. More precisely what I meant was that we should reconsider making ever-increasing consumption the driving force of the economy.
donut economics
People are lost in micromanaging.
@@NenkosWell economic growth is the only thing justifying wealth inequality. Without growth, the economy is a zero sum game, for every winner exists a loser. infinite growth is essential to keep capitalism alive
It seems to me it's more effective and efficient to focus on reducing waste products, developing carbon capture technologies, rejuvenating green space, and lowering overall heat emissions. Integration of more hybrid vehicles rather than fully electric vehicles would improve efficiency while decreasing the amount of fuel burned and mineral resources for construction. Current coal-fired power plants could be retooled to operate on nuclear power. And new buildings can be built with energy efficiency in mind. Rather than dream of an imaginary green future, let's take what we have and make it the most efficient future.
The battery tech in cars are still new just like when iPhone and other cell phones first time launched during the early 2000's. Hopefully it'll get better overtime now that Elon have competitions. Monopolization stunt the growth of innovation.
Net Zero is my internet service provider.
5:10 I don't think the idea that _all_ savings in carbon intensity (i.e. the about of CO2 produced relative to GDP) in Europe is due to offshoring is actually borne out by the data. I have read analysis on this, and I'm pretty sure that even if you account for all consumption-related emissions, there have still been reductions.
Of course, because energy generation is quickly shifting to renewables while efficiency is increasing and thus energy consumption stagnating. In China, where addition of renewable energy sources is highest globally, energy consumption is rising, and thus their emissions are still rising.
Yes, there were emission reductions in europe even accounting for consumption related emissions
What everyone underestimates about nuclear energy is the potential for new tech to produce safe modular cores in factories. Spending the next 6 years in R&D and core factory construction could (if govs simplify licensing/insurance/waste disposal; a big "if") begin a modular reactor boom starting in the early 2030's. The other unknown is new deep well geothermal which can be built almost anywhere for steady baseload power, using oil drilling equipment. Investing heavily into those 2 tech could fill the gap from 2030-2050. New batteries need no cobalt; Tesla bringing cleaner lithium refining too.
While the concerns are valid, it seems that at least when it comes to batteries, there is already a solution. LFP batteries don't require nickel or cobalt and are only slightly more heavy while being less prone to catching on fire. They are already produced on a large scale and in products, including EV's so the chemistry has changed. And at least nickel and cobalt will eventually fade out.
LFP is fine for grid storage, home batteries, and lower-end autos, but batteries with high nickel and some cobalt (NMC, NCA, NMCA) are likely to still be used when needing the highest energy density. For example, Tesla is using high nickel batteries in the Model S/X, Cybertruck, Semi and the long-range variants of Model 3/Y, because it needs the higher energy density. Adding manganese to LFP can increase the energy density from 140-160 to 180-190 Wh/kg and CATL's new M3P also adds magnesium, zinc and aluminum to LMFP to achieve 210 Wh/kg, but they are still far from the 260-290 Wh/kg for the high nickel chemistries.
In other words, I suspect that there will still be a lot of production of high-nickel batteries in the future. For example, motorcycles which weigh too much are hard to ride and more expensive because they require a beefier frame, suspension and brakes, so it looks like the motorcycle industry which produces 60 million units per year will mostly use high nickel batteries. So far, the major electric scooter/motorcycle manufacturers (Yadea, Gogoro, Super Soco, Zero, etc.) have stuck with NMC and I don't think that will change.
@@amosbatto3051interesting thanks 🙏🏼
You completely nullify the whole video at the end when you give a sales pitch for some obscure mining company. Was the whole thing a sales pitch ?
Counter points:
1) Lots of things become possible once economies / production / supply chains convert from fossil fuels to electric.
2) Necessity drives innovation. There is a lot of research into battery tech, for example, that requires more mundane (widely available, less toxic) components and minerals. e.g. Sodium-Ion Batteries, Aluminium-Ion Batteries (aluminum is the most abundant metal on Earth), Organic Batteries, Air batteries, etc.
3) It's not just about renewables and batteries. The energy mix of the future will be partly renewables, nuclear, hydro-electric, hydrogen and probably some other things (we can all hope for fusion as well)
4) Independent of the crises of climate change, the economic model we have today based on continuous growth and continuous new demand is on an unsustainable trajectory. Population implosions in the developed world, aging populations, intensifying competition for raw materials, etc. are all putting pressure on this model. It's pretty clear we can't take the model we have today and project into into the future (e.g. 2100+) as is in any case.
5) We know the fossil fuel based society/economy we have today is unsustainable and that we can't get there (net zero) at scale with a fossil-fuels. The only viable option is a hard push toward electrification and a collective bet on innovation. We've wasted decades already trapped in the fossil-fuel paradigm primarily because it makes a minority of the population rich. The goal isn't to replace one extractive resource (oil and gas) regime / corrupt hegemony with another (lithium, nickel, etc.). So a big no thank you to the investment recommendation.
Sorry bud but the only people who are going to become poor is everyone paying for the electricity because people are scared gas turbines are going to make the sky explode
The right moment to massively invest in nuclear energy was decades ago and even if we invested massively into nuclear energy now (we should), the train has already left the station (i.e., its too late to stop climate change). As a result we are and will remain massively dependent on fossil fuels, given the fast-growing global population and surging energy demands.
Solar already out competes nuclear *on it's worst days during the winter.*
If nuclear can be made to be more responsive and nimble with dynamic supply chains then it is not too late.
But the era of large nuclear power stations is over being built at scale in the west is over . Solar power is too cheap to compete with and once a cheap storage solution is paired with it, it will be economic lunacy to install anything but solar.
Already renewables make up 95 percent of all installed electrical generation capacity
What do you mean by it’s too late to stop climate change? When you say climate change are you referring the change in climate caused by humans? If so why you think it cannot be stopped?
Building enough additional nuclear power plants to be a significant contributor to reducing fossil fuel emissions takes too much time. Nuclear power plants are expensive and too slow to build to avoid overshooting the point of no return.
There is also the same resource concerns as with wind and solar solutions, as mentioned in the video. Compared to that, running out of NPP fuel in 50 years rather than the current rate of 200 years is a joke.
Building some NPPs is fine and it can help a tiny bit, we should not ignore that! The main problem with it besides what I've already mentioned is that energy companies lobby for nuclear as a get out of jail free card. It isn't! But they use it as an excuse to scale down fossil fuel slower than they have to, and adopt renewable energy tech slower.
The real thing that has to be done, and that noone will do, is to build and consume less.
@@ASDeckard You can't go more than 66% in solar and wind due to their intermittent nature.
We need CaspianReport to do a video on what it would take to transition the world to modular nuclear power units. And how it would handle the future spent waste.
Current nuclear tech whether large or small is no good for powering the world as there isn't enough U235. We need fast reactors or thorium reactors to have enough fuel. They ate being worked on but aren't going to be ready for mass production soon enough.
Degrowth would a possible option to consider
Try pitching that to governments and large transnational corporations. The profit drive is what will wreck us
@@josue.ortega Undoubtbly
This video makes it seem like we aren't innovating on technology. Solid state batteries are a thing that are being used. We are finding ways to make wind turbines more effective and same with solar panels. These net zero goals are being made with these innovations in mind.
yeah we are moving from cobol in batteries as we text.
Or take printed solar cells.
But that’s not gonna fix it, even if we did this whole thing is a bandaid to try and fix the issues we actually are having. We need to shut down the coal plants and replace them with better fuels quickly, not wait until it’s so late that the environment is too polluted to fix it like they likely plan on doing.
@@Azurethewolf168 No one here expressed that we should keep coal alive.
@@KManAbout yeah
"as long as [battery] chemistry remains the same..." good thing it isn't. The past few years have seen massive advances in both battery chemistry and recycling technology, including separating "non-recyclable" polymers and plastics back to virgin-quality raw materials, as well as non-lithium-based battery entering the market. I recommend the channel Just Have a Think's recent video on the topic (which also makes an important distinction between the energy actually used and the much larger total energy consumed - which includes that spent for extracting, transporting and refining fossil energy, but is tends to be included in "we'll never make it" figures)
So while I agree that we won't reach net-zero by 2050 (not a reason not to keep striving, every tenth of a degree is important), it's not mainly due to resource constraints.
In fact, while I can't blame you for it, I find it a bit disingenuous to make a video about how mining demand exceeds current capacity precisely when introducing a new mining-investment sponsor. Makes me wonder if the analysis is biased by the desire to have the sponsorship be successful.
Exactly. This video unfortunately does not seem unbiased, which makes me doubt all previous content...
I agree, I feel like the quality of these videos has been going down. They are more biased than they used to be.
@@jooptablet1727
Notice he reused the entire clip of the rising demand for metals.
I'm afraid he's going the path of What I've Learned, except instead of the meat industry it's shady financing
@@LancesArmorStriking same with Wendover productions. The lesson here for me: always think critically and for yourself. Definitely take in information from various sources but never fully trust them individually. And it's okay to admit that you just don't know for sure what is true.
@@jooptablet1727
(At risk of this sounding rich), I feel most of the edutainment channels have gone down in quality since the Ukraine conflict began.
They focus more on putting videos out rather than carefully researching to make sure their arguments are sound. I guess the algorithm favors that topic over tech or logistics-based videos now.
Polymatter, Infographics Show, Adam Something (that one's obvious), seem to have ceded ground to wishful thinking rather than objective analysis.
At least there's still Perun, but he does war stuff exclusively.
Speaking of renewables without including nuclear power is madness
Several decades ago we almost hit a bottleneck with germanium, all our electronic switching was made with germanium. We switched to silicon. Of course, the problem here is one or two orders of magnitude greater today.
All we have to do is stop burning coal, but we are never going to figure it out. In the spirit of the channel let me say that... Truly, it's harder not to do something, than to do something.
Nope, burn more coal and oil. Bring costs down, not up. Fake "climate change" is fake.
we also need to stop having as many kids.
@@yuval5628 The Africans and Arabs are the ones who need to stop having so many kids. Europeans and East Asians need to start having more.
caspian report gets into pump n dump scams... lol
You have the best channel on CZcams, thanks for continuing to upload these videos.