How to power your house, with xkcd's Randall Munroe
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 07. 2024
- xkcd on the best (and worst) ways to power your house with renewable energy. Our video features just a few of the many “useless but entertaining” ideas from his latest book, How To: Absurd Scientific Advice for Common Real-World Problems.
Check it out here: xkcd.com/how-to/ - Krátké a kreslené filmy
The biomass seems extra bad because it not only produces little power, you have to spend extra money to raptor-proof your doors and windows as the foliage provides a natural hiding place for velociraptors.
Ah, the true meaning of fossil fuels
biomass produces construction materials that is used to build protection. Of course if you didn't harvest it it became a dense cover for dangerous creatures like velociraptors.
Listen up, these are the most important gardening tips of your life!
velociraptors were desert-dwelling creatures. It's like saying foliage is a natural hiding place for a fenneck fox
@@Ptaku93 Are you suggesting that foliage is instead a synthetic hiding place for a fenneck fox? The foliage is natural. Any hiding place for any creature created by the foliage is natural. Naturality is a transitive property.
My entire comprehension of spacetime has collapsed upon learning that xkcd is a real person with a normal human form in meatspace
No, it's a webcomic.
Meatspace :D That makes me happy
Fear not, what you see in this video is merely the three-dimensional projection of his true two-dimensional body.
That's merely the 3D projection of a 2D cartoon, don't be fooled.
If Randall is calling something his worst idea ever, that means it has to be extraordinarily silly.
EDIT: Did not disappoint.
honestly I'm not convinced it even IS the worst idea in that book
@@Josh-ks7co it's more silly than the average person can possibly conceive! It brings into play ontological questions of what the word "sillyness" means (which is pretty damn silly). It takes a brain the size of a planet... oh, never mind!
But it only will take 36million years to pay for itself!
Not nearly as expensive OR destructive as the Earth-Moon fire pole.
Earth not destroyed. Disappointed.
Here I was thinking the worst idea ever would be a pitcher throwing baseballs at 0.9c.
well, that was a reader question... it's not *his* most silly idea
Nah, that's the worst idea in a _different_ book of his.
.....but can you use a near light speed baseball to power your house? Would it have enough energy?
@@thomasboys7216 It _would_ have enough energy to power your house for years. Unfortunately, your house could not coexist on the same lot with a near-lightspeed baseball, and would be consumed by said baseball's expanding sphere of incandescent plasma.
The baseball game at least makes for a handy weapon in a total war (of annihilation).
"Plants are kind of like solar panels: they grow on the ground."
Yeah, uh... That sounds right to me.
It's a valid statement. They just are even less efficient than our own crappy solar collectors
@@nickbrutanna9973 Can you give me a link to solar panels that grow on ground. I tried to google them, but i failed.
@@skyrask1948 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis perhaps?
@@skyrask1948 I got u fam
middle.pngfans.com/20190502/z/solar-plant-drawing-png-solar-power-solar-energy-c-367cae9eaf9cd4b6.jpg
Clearly means they're like solar panels in that they collect energy from the sun.. and they just happen to sit on the ground....
So thats randall. Hes not actually a stick figure?
He is, they used CGI for this video to make him look more normal.
He is. This is a stick figure wearing a skinsuit.
Alas, we now have no more budget for the rest of the year.
I like to think they use the same GFX company they used in the MCU for Michael Douglas and Sam Jackson
@@uss_04 🤫
I always assumed Randal was some sort of advanced machine learning programme which the developers had taught to draw cartoons as a joke.
I was expecting geothermal. If you drill down deep enough, the rocks will be hot enough.
Well your property only extends a little underground so you wouldn’t be able to do that
Me too, it's in his book though
In the US at least, most land is owned “to the center of the Earth.”
@@gregoryc29 No, not even close - that heavily depends on the state. In many the property and underground rights are sold separately. Even where not there are many other limitations in place. This can be as bad as an mineral-company showing up and start creating tunnels just 5m under.
@@ABaumstumpf Technically, the land isn't even owned. In the states, we are tenants. Check the abstract, we technically rent the land from the U.S. government, as with everywhere in the world. I do believe in the US, we usually possess most mineral rights though, but that also depends on state.
I don't know who this weird 3D man is, but there's a webcomic I think he'd like.
Randall, it's so good to actually hear your voice.
Huge fan.
I have both a small wind turbine (2.4kW) and solar panels (5kW) on my property which powers my entire house. The wind turbine is mostly a waste of money as it only produces a small fraction of my annual energy but the sola panels are fantastic! I recommend solar panels to everyone. I also charge my EV with my solar panels and wind turbine so I pay $0 for electricity and $0 for gasoline.
How much did you pay for the panels? Around $15,000?
@@MantasXVIII I have 7kW panels with 5kW inverter, paid about 7k$. ROI in 4-5 years even though electricity is cheap where I live.
Cool that you’re using good sources of energy
@@CemKalyoncu and how fast does their efficiency drop off, 10% every year?
@@MantasXVIII They are guaranteed to have I think 80% (or 70, not sure) efficiency up to 25 years!
Wait, the title says I can actually use Randall Munroe of xkcd to power my house. Start runnin'!!
Wait! There's a comma in the title! Randall is safe!
Haven't you watched the matrix?
But most athletes only produce 100-400W. And ... drawing cartoons is not particularly metabolically stimulating. Anyway, you'd have to feed Randal if you want him to keep your giant mouse-wheel going, so you're back to biomass, but less efficient.
You could get about 100-200W out of his body heat, or you could drop him in a geothermal vent, and use the heat to burn his body and get all of the caloric energy from his body without the expenses of cremation.
Yup, you can purchase his books to use as fuel.
Just.. be aware that is one of the books turn out to be cursed, it may not burn.
(if you don't get it, read the How-to book)
Just want to say, How To is a brilliant book.
For some reason I was always imagining cgp grey’s voice whenever I read his books
No lie, the first time I saw him (in a TED talk video), I was so offput by his face having features that I could barely listen to what he was saying.
Yeah, but at the same time, it's kind of the face you'd have imagined him to have. Which is weird, given that all you had to go on was a featureless stick figure.
Link me, when did he give a Ted talk o.o
@@CraftBasti Absolutely, here it is: czcams.com/video/I64CQp6z0Pk/video.html
But what about stars? No, like, tapping directly into the fusion energy they produce. At some point *one* of them must be in the column (or, on a practical cosmic scale, cone) you own.
It doesn't stay there, though, and you have to stay in your lot.
I'm just curious one calculates how much coal, uranium, etc. is under a 0.2 acre suburban lot? It's not like we're going to run out of coal in 12 years.
@@timothyconover9805 He gives the explanation at 0:19. Your lot is assumed to have a fraction of the US's resources proportional to its size, as if all energy resources were distributed exactly evenly across the country's total area.
@@timothyconover9805 however, in 12 years, our weather is going to be so bad that anyone found to be powering anything as large as a house with coal is going to be met with a group of angry suburbanites with pitchforks. At which point it will become a "human-body-powered" house for about 10 minutes. I'm a little disappointed "witch-burning" wasn't considered as a power source. ;(
IIUC above a certain altitude space treaties kick in (google "common heritage of mankind") and you can't extract resources by default anymore.
Who woulda thought Randall had a mouth. or eyes. or volume.
I designed my home to be passive solar and passive geothermal in S WI my home stays between 50-82d without extra heat added. I can cool the large home with a bedroom-sized AC unit
millionaire problems..
make a video on how to use cardboard packaging to keep you warm in winter!
Nice video! Added to our channel playlist and shared with our stakeholders (renewables in UK).
Just finished this book and highly recommend it (and What If)! 👍👍👍
Nice interview! I've read How To in the first month.
This is excellent. I love xkcd
And I'm just sitting here, thinking of getting a plot with a small stream and building a water mill.
I would also think geothermal, and various ways of hydro from rain, ground flow, or under ground would be effective.
Hi Frost, because of time, we weren't able to go into all the ideas Randall laid out. You can find out more of the ideas from chapter in the book here: xkcd.com/how-to/
if it's the average geothermal energy the entire world has that seems like it would not actually be a lot
No
I would expect hydro from rain (on one urban lot), to be difficult. Water needs to drop a very far to create power needed to generate the kind of power a typical house needs.
This was pretty rad, only because I have never ever known what Randall Munroe looked like. He looks almost exactly like what I imagined, so this is gold.
One note about nuclear. The 1.5 grams is at like 0.3% of usable fuel that get 5% efficiency of fuel usage. There are newer designs that use thorium 6 gram equivalent and have 100% fuel usage. So it would be 4x20x333= 26640 times longer than a few months. A bit further off it seems that fusion might be a thing that can actually power something. Definitely buy solar now though. It is worth it.
Little disappointed that the only method he considered for biomass was burning, when you could also compost the material. Conmposting generates heat due to thermophillic bacteria
Relax, he completely fucked up the biomass calculation from the very start.
It doesn't really matter how he extracts the energy. He is turning carbon and hydrogen (from the tree) into carbon dioxide and water. I have no idea how he got his number (so it may be incorrect) but the method is immaterial to these sorts of calculations.
Do the thermophillic bacteria produce more heat than burning the biomass? Burning would get you maximum efficiency, though it is perhaps less efficient in other ways.
@@marvinkitfox3386 could you provide better calculations for us? The problem I see with it is that he chose trees as his biomass, when he could have chosen something much faster growing (I suspect this is the reason his numbers are so low). That being said, the most efficient photosynthesis is somewhere around 1%, compared to solar panels which can regularly get something closer to 15%, so biomass is never going to be able to power an average home in this way.
@@IanXMiller His figure of 38watt, implies that his 0.2 acres of forest grows a total of 60 kg of wood per year, only.
2 tons is closer to correct. Making his calc for wood off by a FACTOR of 31. Planting pine on that 0.2 acre grows enough wood to sustain about 400watt *after conversion inefficiencies*. And Pine is about the shittiest source for biofuel you can imagine! Grow maize, it is more than twice as photosyntheticaly efficient, and produces its fuel in a much more convenient form.
@@marvinkitfox3386 but planting something like maze would rapidly deplete the nitrogen in the soil, unless you also planted nitrogen fixing legumes with them, which would offset the amount of maze you could grow. But maybe you could eat the legumes and harness your flatulence for more energy. But all in all, a solar panel topped wind harvesting tunnel would probably be the most efficient.
Im being kind of silly, i should go back to work.
Great stuff.
Got 60x 390Wp on the roof (east and west directed) and a 16,6kWh battery. Had the first energy independent days in febuary and only gotten 39kWh from the grid in march.
While using a heat pump as sole source of heat.
I am loving it.
I do not know your property.... but I would assume that you do not have 390 KILO_watt_peak panels installed... 🤔
Otherwise, I would consider a 16kWh battery a bit small 2x11 MW solar generation ...
It's awesome to show the scientific knowledge sooo easily!! I'd like to meet you someday...
What about finding a chunk of thorium under ground (not hard) and running your house and and the whole town? Thorium is a much safer version of nuclear energy.
The next guy who comes around with this wishful thinking trip of the Garden of Eden Thorium reactor that has not run one year with acceptable economy and safety - will be dissolved in molten salts. :)
Nice, thank you!
Heat (in the ground as well as in the air) would be another resource you could tap into, by using a heat pump. Ok, you'd need something else (like wind or solar) to run it, but you'd be able to extract more energy from the lot.
just ordered this book today ^.^
kinda woulda like to have seen some of the sketches being drawn.
xkcd incoming!! yaaay!
Only the biomass solution is actually limited to your plot, since all of the others require bringing in significant resources from outside the plot to build the power collection apparatus.
Biomass is also powered by the sun.
@@vornamenachname5267 Coal, too, if you go back far enough.
Biomass uses sunlight and the sun is outside the plot.
I saw uranium but I was hoping he'd cover thorium too.
or fusion
His numbers are wrong for uranium. The average suburban lot (800 sq metres) to a depth of 1metre contains 3 kg of uranium. That is enough to power the house for centuries.
@@michaelvandermeer6416 That's an interesting stat, do you have a source for it?
@@spacewolfjr I calculated it using average lot size, average soil density and average uranium content. Depending on sources for the above data, I get between 3 and 8 Kg Uranium. That is enough to power a house for 1000-2000 years.
Others have pointed out that I neglected the Thorium, which is true. This means I have underestimated the number by 1000's of years.
Love this. One question/observation, would the ratio of solar vs wind power differ greatly based on location? For example, I am in Winnipeg, and while we have incredible summers, we would have less than ideal winters for optimal solar power generation. We always seem to have wind blowing, however.
Thanks, Stephen. For the sake of easy comparison, he assumed all resources were evenly distributed. Of course in reality, all of these resources do vary depending on where you live. So in Winnipeg, the long summer days might be great for solar, but you're correct that the winters/cloudy days/nights would be a challenge.
@@dirty_mac thanx for the laugh.
@Michael Yu: As a Winnipegger, I can agree with your statement.
@@alexkramerblogs Thank you for that!
Yes, this is part of the reason why all these different solutions have been further developed as they are. If it was one size fits all, well, no reason to keep working on the rest.
Regarding wind power, is it really your "fair share"? I assume that would deny your down-wind neighbors from using wind power if they wanted, but maybe the energy lost from house to house is negligible, or maybe there's some pattern for optimally staggering the heights. Can anyone help me do the math on this?
You could presumably look at plans for real wind farms to see what kind of spacing is optimal for power generation. One turbine the size of the typical suburban plot of land could power many homes, so share a bit and you’d be fine.
It’d also be pretty expensive. Solar is way more cost efficient for this sort of situation, and frankly looks better, as long as you aren’t putting up a panel the size of your lot... Actually, I’d be curious to see cost vs cost for the same kW output.
He did say that you would be able to get enough energy to power your house and about half dozen of your neighbors, so your next door neighbor might not be able to get any energy because of your turbine, but you could just share the energy you worked up to make up for his loss.
Energy lost is far from negligible. You need hundreds of feet of clear air before and after it passes through your turbine if you want decent generation (you need low turbulence). Also, the turbine needs to be very tall. Wind is not practical (yet?) in urban areas like in Munroe's example.
In ALL of these cases for solar and wind, he ignores the location, seasonal, and intermittency issues buried in the problem.
The sun drops pretty close to one kilowatt per square meter (see "Solar Constant"), so to provide your house with, say, 200 kw-hrs of power per day, you are talking about needing not less than 200 square meters of coverage for the whole day. Since the sun only shines about half the day, double that, to 400 sm. But really, thanks to clouds, the sun moving across the sky, etc., you really only have PART of the day's power at that level (see "Solar Insolation, Map, USA") -- which runs from 7 to 4 kwH/sm/day -- so figure out where you are, divide 200 (or 100, look at your electric bill to figure out what your max usage probably was -- call it 2x your daily usage to be "safe") by 4,5,6,or 7 and you'll get an actual idea how many sq-m panels you'll need. 25 to 50 sq meters is not huge, but it's not all that small, either -- we are talking a segment that is 25'x18' for that 200kwh instance. And it'll cost you probably something over US$10,000 -- the national average is about US$20k for 6kw, for a 2500 sq-ft home.
THEN let's recall you need to store it, so you can use about half of it at night. So, more money for batteries.
Did you want to sell the excess? That requires a split setup, so you can sell it to the power company. As many people in Cali have found out to their dismay, having solar hooked up to sell to the power companies does not mean it goes to your house when there's a blackout. Psych!! This requires yet another expensive setup...
So when the government starts MANDATING this stuff, as Cali has, they're basically making home ownership into something impossible for most people... even in those areas where property values are not already insane.
OH. Then there's CLEANING. Solar panels, with only about a 20% coverage of "stuff" -- dust, soot, etc., -- lose up to 50% of their capacity. So you need to clean them regularly.
And where are we placing them? On the roof? Yeah, this is a popular place. And are you aware of what the second most common cause of accidental death in the USA is? YUP. Falls. So, you're going to be out on that roof regularly cleaning these off... even (or especially) when it's snowing. Sweeeeeeeet!
@@nickbrutanna9973 he uses average yearly production and divides it by the hours in a year to get to the average power. But even then, solar provides way more energy than a single house needs. Typical capacity factors for fixed solar in the US are 7-12%, so that still leaves you with at least double what you need for an average house. Insulate it a bit better and it's a lot less. Drive electric and you can even power your average daily direct energy consumption. The only thing you can't power is the energy associated with producing all the crap you buy, which is fairly significant.
Plenty of hydrogen in the rainwater. Fire up the thermonuclear fusion reactor!
Should be enough for both you and your 100 millions closest neighbors.
Johannes Halvorsen Good luck fitting one with a positive energy return on that lot.
@@pseudotasuki we haven't even made any that produce a net positive energy output
How about Geothermal energy? Sink some really long pipes into the ground and tap into the thermal energy of the planet.
Kxcd (not an acronym) is one of the greatest things on the Internet.
If you mean xkcd, then yes, you're right.
1:39 or to your south, depending on where you live
If you live in the polar regions, there's no sunlight at all in winter. And when there is, your entire neighbourhood will taste the shadow of your panel once a day, unless the panel is very small.
But I guess the average plot is at the average latitude of US plots of land.
1:32 It was never defined how HIGH you are allowed to build.
So I ignore the inefficiency & compensate it with quality by building an INFINITE solar panel straight up & solve the global energy crisis in 1 swoop.
(& also probably stop Earth's rotation & causes massive earthquakes & so on... (can some scientists calculate what effects this would have?))
am scientist, can't calculate. but eventually you run into the issue of the FAA being upset that they have to route airplanes around your humble abode if you build tall enough.
@@_topsy Ok, but you're thinking too small, they have to also route the ISS & Mars & many galaxies around the solar panel too :D
Hook an anchor to Moon and have it pull your generator.
@@pRahvi0 Maybe that could work, I heard that the moon moves away from earth by roughly the same speed that your nails grow...
Buy a huge battery and a lightening rod and just hope it strikes soon
Taking in that much energy in such a short period is difficult.
@@oliverspin8963 It is difficult, but is it impossible?🤔
Lightning is a bad source of power. Too infrequent, and too strong when you get it.
But consider atmospheric electricity. The normal earth static field, not the nasty stuff from convection currents in thunderstorms!
czcams.com/video/2rVdEhyMR6A/video.html
@@veryInteresting_ Currently yes. We don't have big enough batteries for that, and they can't absorb that much power in half a second without frying
@@Xencam a lot full of super capacitors maybe ?
He's awesome
XKCD in 3D is quite the uncanny experience, I am so used to those stick figures as a representation of "don't focus on me, focus on my work"
- rain, common one; - in areas with winter ice melting and freezing across seasons transfers a lot of energy; - under ground, there are often huge waterways people drill for wells that could be used hydroelectrically; - up in the air, there is an ionic differential as you go higher; …
How about thermal changes between night and day? That should be relatively easy to extract.
My house is a sailboat and 300w solar powers everything
What about the tectonic plate idea if you lived in Hollister, CA? Moving fault on your door step.
Plus they seem to sell a lot of branded clothing, too.
I live in a forest. There is a canopy of trees above me. The sun never shines directly on my roof. Unfortunately solar panels would only be good at waiting for a falling branch to shatter them
Just get a “Mr. Fusion.”
are those calculations/scribbles written in the inside book cover?
A backyard nuclear would definitely be the most practical
So I'm in favor of solar and wind, personally, but I are we just gonna glaze right over the uranium option? Sure nuclear power isn't literally infinite, but it's an incredibly *compact* way to provide tons of energy with zero carbon emissions. Again, not saying it's better than solar or wind, but it was disappointing that they didn't even mention it.
Hey Corey! Randall actually covers several more energy sources in his book. For the sake of time, we only were able to cover a few with him. But he dives into nuclear energy and reactor technology in the book (as well as geothermal, hydropower, fossil fuels, and destroying the fabric of space time). If you're interested, I'd recommend checking it out.
@@Grist what abou fusion
Meanwhile I'm still waiting for that book to get published in China. Don't really want to bother with importing a single book unless it's something absurdly hard to find. I've got his other two books so it's likely just a matter of time for this one (to get localized) as well.
Did you really forget to mention geothermal heat exchange turbine generators? And you could build them that you basically have your own personal mini-volcano, just a controlled one.
Only 36 million years? I'm going to start right away!
For home use, solar seems by far and away, the most practical. Forget 'grid tie". go with battery and inverter, with a charger connected to the grid, if needed. According to my calculations, a 24 hour battery will produce the lowest cost of energy storage, whether you choose Lead Acid, or Lithium.
This man is the reason I have high education and can speak English
Yes
What if the plates move between now and 36 million years?
Yeah that's the goal
OMG my Hero
Check out power from thorium.
Have a lot of that on your lot, do you?
@@Ni999 Thorium is several times more abundant than uranium, and you can use close to 100% of it as nuclear fuel without refining, versus only around 1% of uranium.
@@DenebTM Destroy your whole property and refine every ounce of dirt to access it 🤦♂️
@@DenebTM Thanks for the commercial but you didn't answer my question and you didn't get the point.
@@mikemhz Do the same with any other non-renewable fuel.
at tree-top altitudes (slower more turbulent air), old school "wild west" windmill designs are FAR more efficient than the larger 3-bladed propeller styles.
Solar AND wind. Not mutually exclusive, the turbine only throws a little bit of shade.
The others can be included too, except biomass
What about thorium?
the average amount of thorium under a given amount of land would be negligible, there are no rich deposits in this scenario
@@enzldavaractl8345 The video states the "average" lot has 1.5 ounces of Uranium. Thorium is 7 times as abundant as Uranium, which works out to 10.5 ounces. Nothing was said about deposits in the video. Also, a Liftr reactor can extract all of the 10.5 ounces of Thorium into power where a standard Uranium reactor can only use about 1% of the uranium in the fuel rod. Hence where the uranium only lasts for a few months a 10 ounce ball of Thorium can last several decades at least.
@@michaelmorris4515 You gonna turn your lot into a big hole in the ground for 10.5 ounces of thorium?
@@mikemhz You're being intentionally obtuse for the sake of being argumentative. The video is about energy potential - not the logistics of getting the stuff out of the ground.
I feel like that's too small of an estimate of uranium. The quantity of uranium is roughly what i'd expect, but the "few months of power" seems quite low. Maybe if you only burned the U235. I'd expect a gram or two of uranium to have enough energy to run a house for a couple years. An ounce or two should run a house for the better part of a century.
Also, it seems a bit unfair to not limit the solar panel or the wind turbine by how many square inches of panel or wind turbine area you could construct with the resources in your cube of land. If you only count fuel and not construction material, then obviously the low-fuel, high-material sources are going to look good.
Spot on.
Also uranium is basically renewable in the oceans.
Are you including the material cost of the burner too?
As for the solar material, most of it sand.
let say it takes a ton of sand to make enough solar panels for 1 person.
7.5 * 10^18 grains of sand
0.011 grams per grain
11 billion people
1 ton per person
7.5 x 10^18 * 0.011 grams / 11 billion /1 ton
We still have enough for 8 times the number of people.
@@catprog to make it perfectly fair you'd have to include the material costs of the nuclear plant; yes. But a nuclear plant is far less material-intensive than a solar panel. For a rough sense of comparison, the energy ROI for solar is about 8:1, meaning we get roughly 8 times the energy back that we spent making a panel. Nuclear ROI is typically about 80:1.
A ~2GW-Y nuclear plant consists of 2 reactor buildings on a plot if land about 200m×300m in area. That's no small construction project. But to generate the equivalent energy with solar panels you'll need 2 million square meters, or 2 square kilometers, since solar irradiance is about 1kw/m2. Then you need to multiply that area by 3, since the sun changes angle and is gone for half the day anyway. Then you need to multiply that by 5, for a generous 20% efficiency of the panels, and then you need to multiply by 2-3 again, because a solar panel's life is only ~20-30 years vs a nuclear plant's 60-80. So to provide tge same energy you need to build literally 60 square kilometers of solar panels.
And that's not even including the material cost of all the batteries you'll need for storage of solar. The intermittent energy sources have been enjoying the advantage of being on an energy grid with other baseload sources, so they can just turn on and off as they please. But if we're talking a wind & solar-only grid, they'll have to manage that themselves, and that material cost is going to be at least half again the cost of the panels. The best batteries right now are something like 200Wh/kg. 5kg for a kilowatt hour. To provide just one day of backup power, 2GW x 24hr means ~50GW-hr, which is 250 million kg of batteries, which will need to be repeatedly reprocessed any number if times over tgat same plant life period since they'll be charging and discharging every day and night. Plus all the wiring, inverters, cooling, and conversion efficiency losses.
Any kind of diffuse energy-farming method is going to require massive amounts of material and labor for you gather it all up. There just isn't any good way around that.
@@Xylos144 I see a number of flaws in your analysis.
1)You are using a number of estimates for solar production.
My sources say 1685.52kwh/kw of solar panel a year.
For a kw of panels you need 5.5m^2
2GW * 1 year / 1685.52kwh * 5.5m^2 in km^2 = 60km^2
To determine land area use you don't need to factor lifetime as you just replace.
2)The biggest problem for a nuclear only grid is you have to turn the nukes off to match demand which means they will not be generating 24x7.
France for instance has the ability to export their nuclear power and only achieves 70% usage.
3)As for storage if you have a grid then you can do something like 8xsplit yard creeks.
2000acres for 2GW * 24 hours of storage.
No updates on the forums yet. Is it reasonable to expect them to come back before the end of the year?
Have fun proposing these ideas to my HOA which doesn't allow us to park SUVs in our OWN DRIVEWAY
So, how about the economics of buying a house in Colorado, growing vegetation, selling that and buying someone else's solar power with the proceeds?
Since most electricity is used for heating, is there an efficient way to capture the sun's energy to heat your home directly, without even converting it to electricity?
There are solar panels specifically meant to heat water, so that could work to supplement your heating system if you use classic water-based radiators for heat. Although usually these panels are used to supplement hot water consumption in something like a shower.
Live in a glass house.
Did you overlook Geo thermic? Bet I could find it in many if not most locations in North America where it would work. How deep would I have to drill to hit that hot air or water? In North Jersy, I worked in a zinc mine (White Hores, Ogdensberg, NJ). At 150 ft to 750, the temp was 60 f. At 150, it was getting warm. At 225, it was uncomfortably warm. What if I used/had access to current oil drilling tech and materials? What if I drilled to 3,00 ft and introcduced a water to steam circulation system? Would it last forever (or until the materials corroded out)?
Okay, but what if I find uranium under my house and build a fission reactor?
There's nothing in the rules restricting vertical space. In principle, you can generate a practically unbounded amount of electricity by building a solar panel straight up.
1kw for a house? A freezer needs 500w, a microwawe needs 800w, a hair dryer needs 1.5kw, a kettle needs 2kw. You need at least 10kw to be sure that you have enouhg power for daily needs, 15kw preferable
You're being kind. You didn't list any real inductive loads like a well pump, or furnace, But hey, who needs water. Or heat. And apparently, he found a way to to not kill everyone in the house when it's -30F, for only 1kw.
Then there's the whole, "No wind for days" thing. And hail. And snow.
The 1kw number is of course an average ... and that is about right. E.g. in 2018 the averge us household consumed ~30kwh per day (source: google), this requires an average energy production of 1.25kw during the day to cover. Sure you will also need energy storage to be able to handle peak loads but that was not the topic here. If you are aiming for 15kw of average energy production you would be able to cover 10+ us housholds so yeah ... your number is very far off
Do you have your microwave, hair dryer, and kettle running all day? If so, please stop.
@@kappamakizushi Learn how power works. Either it supplies peak, or it browns out like California.
@@smc1897 Since we're talking about solar and wind, I'm assuming there is some kind of storage that can handle higher output during peak usage.
I tried to name my kid bobby tables, my wife wouldnt have it
I'm convinced.. Tectonic plates is the FUTURE!!! 🤪
It sure beats paddling around on magma in a basalt canoe.
Maybe consider retitling to an enigmatic: "Randall Munroe's better bet into the future"
The key phrase is "Averaged over the course of a year." As in, "Will my ground loop heater come on when my house is 38 degrees?" "Well, averaged over the course of a year...."
"Averaged over the course of a year, this food that rots in one day has enough calories to sustain us for the entire year!"
- starves to death 3 weeks later
“Averaged over the course of a week, setting fire to your car will keep it warm enough to comfortably live in it.”
You keep your thermostat at 38? C or F that's really odd...
@@robloughrey What's extra strange is adam is turning ON the heater at 38 degrees. I think he may be an alien.
If you dig deep enough it will get really hot too. Something you can transform to power.
Nice to have a face to the comics now.
Talking about hypotheticals, what about fusion power?
It's weird that I haven't seen his face until now. Despite reading his web comic and hearing him narrate various videos
I'm pretty frustrated by the glossed over claim that each person would get only 1.5 ounces of uranium, which is misleading by like six orders of magnitude.
There are 4.5 billion tons of uranium in the world's oceans, or about a half ton per person. This could generate 20-30 gigawatt hours of electricity, or enough to run a 1kw continuous draw household for a little less than five thousand years. (Before you ask, yes, there are viable ways to extract uranium from seawater. It's more expensive, but frankly uranium is incredibly cheap already - 90+% of the cost is plant operation. Doubling the price of uranium barely affects the bottom line ).
And before you say "okay, but in five thousand years we'll be in real trouble", the uranium in seawater is supplied by dissolving deposits of uranium-rich rock. If we actually extracted enough uranium from seawater to reduce the concentration, the change in osmotic density would cause it to be replenished from the rocks at an increased rate. The *actual* amount of uranium we can access from the sea is several orders of magnitude higher. We have on the order hundreds of thousands to millions of years before "running out of uranium" is a remotely realistic concern. That's also ignoring the availability of other radioisotopes you can extract power from, like thorium.
To sum up, for practical purposes nuclear power is a renewable resource. We will not run out. It is wrong to imply that that there is *any* risk of that.
Sources:
cna.ca/news/theres-uranium-seawater-renewable/
www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514
web.evs.anl.gov/uranium/guide/facts/
the ocean's not on your plot of land, however.
@@manoflead643 Sure, but it's at least worth mentioning as a caveat. The impression given here is that only solar and wind are viable long term, and everything else will run out in a few months or years, and that's not even kind of true.
calm down
For you, anything.
So Randall dug into uranium a little more in the book, but we didn't have time to go in-depth on everything. We (grist.org, the enviro news org that produced this video) have written more about it on our site. For people who are interested, we have a couple of pieces here:
Next-gen nuclear is coming if we want it
grist.org/article/next-gen-nuclear-is-coming-if-we-want-it/
Nuclear is scary - let's face those fears
grist.org/article/nuclear-is-scary-lets-face-those-fears/
People saying that most of the energy goes to heating surely don't live on a tropical country :D
Unless they're saying that most of gasoline energy, for example, is usually converted to heat.
Average plot of land in not tropical. Well, it depends on what you average. But the average of neither US or the entire World is not tropical.
@@pRahvi0 Agreed. Not the average, but 40%, which is almost half. If we consider that 50% of the world uses energy to generate heat, and, let's say, 20% uses energy to generate cold (which consumes MUCH more energy, because of the losses on conversions), my point is still pretty valid.
worldpopulationreview.com/countries/tropical-countries/
How heavy or tall of a gravity engine would you need to power a house (if say it was manually reset)?
1 ton * 100m = .272kwh
However if you are manually resetting it. 2 lots of 1kg * 1m , while one falls you reset the other one
But where did he get the material for a solar power or a 200m wind mill from his 0.2 acre lot? Maybe he harvested from the middle of the magma when he was building the tectonic energy harvester?
I would have preferred something like " on the averaged household, how much pwer can you realistically make?" and show for example how much power the average roof woudl get with solar, and if a wind turbine is worth it, or biomass gas production with garbage and stuff, etc etc
Wind and solar energy are safer, cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels.
Solar panels with battery storage means that you do not need a generator when the utility power drops.
Save money and increase reliability, love it.
Solar + battery in a situation where you have a grid connection ?
You are wasting your money.
@@BlackSharkfr Many people get solar but do not get a big enough system to do 100%.
It all depends on the space available to install solar and the amount you want to spend. Cutting your electric bills by 50% or more still saves a lot of money over time. Also with transportation going electric more people will be increasing their electricity use to charge their cars.
THE MOST efficient is.... a combination of some of the above. The majority of production would be solar, wind can back this up-especially for night energy production. But one he forgot or missed is bio-gas from our waste. Rotting organic/human waste produces enough gas to cook on daily.
where I live, none of these will power my home. Trees, perpetual clouds, little sunlight in winter when you need power the most, not enough land even if I covered every square inch of my property in solar and cut down every one of mine and my neighbor's trees.
I'm an engineer in the computer industry and did all the analysis and calculations for sizing a solar system to my specific energy needs (which have been very consistent for over teh past 10yrs of my life).
Not all locations on earth are equal.
What if you used mithril instead of steel?
My strategy: Solar wall corner to corner up to the stratosphere.
Edit:
Two-sided so that it captures the sun more reliably
@1:39 *'and also whoever lived closer to the pole than you...'
How about geothermal power? Dig two sufficiently deep holes and run water through it. It should be quite hot at the other end.
Still thinking thorium could work out. Also a bunch of uranium is in the ocean but that may be hard to tap into.
Now followup question: if everything on earth would be powered purely by wind turbines, what would be the effects on ecosystem of those turbines taking away the wind energy from earth's mechanisms itself?
But for biomass is that just generating electricity through a generator? Because I bet you could work up a combined heat and power system that might get you close.
Didn’t realize Randall looks like an 80’s dad