Can We Make Electricity Without Fossil Fuels? : Crash Course Climate & Energy #3
video description
anyway, Fission is really overly demonized, and it's really too bad, since it would go a long way to solving our energy issues if we'd just get over the stigma. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I can't help but feel like the bad PR is at least partially caused/supported by folks who benefit from oil and fossil fuels remaining our primary energy source.
Date: 2023-01-04
Related videos
• TED-Ed
Comments and reviews: 14
Cities
Energy efficiency not discussed. This is crucial first step to reduce demand, e. g. passive & LEED certified buildings, energy efficient manufacturing & industry etc. For example, MIT is looking into bioluminescence to replace streetlighting and many traffic intersection can be converted to traffic circles (what else can be run without electricity.
Energy storage to reduce intermittency is not discussed (future topic. Pumped hydro (not requiring the damming of rivers) is a popular choice.
Baseload power is also now less of an issue as engineers become more skilled at incorporating renewables into the grid.
Renewable energy that's not intermittent was also not discussed such as next gen geothermal, conduit hydro, turbulent hydro, clean waste to energy, energy from poop, kinetic energy, ocean & wave power. It should also be noted that offshore wind is less intermittent than on-shore wind power. Agrivoltaics allows farmers to generate a second income whilst still producing the crops we need for food security. An emerging energy storage facility are EVs, e. g. V2G (charge your EV overnight when energy demand is low & cheap and use some of it to earn money when demand for energy is high.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Nuclear energy is not a toy nor a shiny new gadget. It places responsibility onto future generations for energy used today. If cities, regions & countries properly plan & democratise the energy generation (e. g. community energy) nuclear won't be necessary - it's extremely expensive, takes decades to build & decommission, is hazardous & dangerous throughout its lifecycle (many accidents & problems are not reported or are classified, esp. in countries with authoritarian govs) and requires extremely specialised skills requiring years of study etc. Other renewable energy types - such as solar - require less specialised skills and will create & sustain a lot more jobs.
Making renewable energy tech recyclable was also not discussed. This should have been mandatory from the beginning, but govs have begun to catch on and put the required policies in place to ensure this occurs, and companies are beginning to see the value im recycling renewable energy tech.
reply
Energy efficiency not discussed. This is crucial first step to reduce demand, e. g. passive & LEED certified buildings, energy efficient manufacturing & industry etc. For example, MIT is looking into bioluminescence to replace streetlighting and many traffic intersection can be converted to traffic circles (what else can be run without electricity.
Energy storage to reduce intermittency is not discussed (future topic. Pumped hydro (not requiring the damming of rivers) is a popular choice.
Baseload power is also now less of an issue as engineers become more skilled at incorporating renewables into the grid.
Renewable energy that's not intermittent was also not discussed such as next gen geothermal, conduit hydro, turbulent hydro, clean waste to energy, energy from poop, kinetic energy, ocean & wave power. It should also be noted that offshore wind is less intermittent than on-shore wind power. Agrivoltaics allows farmers to generate a second income whilst still producing the crops we need for food security. An emerging energy storage facility are EVs, e. g. V2G (charge your EV overnight when energy demand is low & cheap and use some of it to earn money when demand for energy is high.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Nuclear energy is not a toy nor a shiny new gadget. It places responsibility onto future generations for energy used today. If cities, regions & countries properly plan & democratise the energy generation (e. g. community energy) nuclear won't be necessary - it's extremely expensive, takes decades to build & decommission, is hazardous & dangerous throughout its lifecycle (many accidents & problems are not reported or are classified, esp. in countries with authoritarian govs) and requires extremely specialised skills requiring years of study etc. Other renewable energy types - such as solar - require less specialised skills and will create & sustain a lot more jobs.
Making renewable energy tech recyclable was also not discussed. This should have been mandatory from the beginning, but govs have begun to catch on and put the required policies in place to ensure this occurs, and companies are beginning to see the value im recycling renewable energy tech.
reply
David
In short, we can, but it's lacking the infrastructure that fossil fuel -sourced energy has built up, meaning we can't presently rely on only green energy sources.
Nuclear is a good substitute for carbon-sourced energy generation on a large scale with high efficiency, but it shifts the issues from polluting the sky to polluting the ground (underground, in caves, mostly. Less immediately impactful, and likely a much slower-building issue than CO2 pollution, but still a limited-time use solution.
Of particular shortfall for green energy is the lack of immediate, on-demand use. You can't just summon the wind to spin a turbine or demand the clouds clear or night end to summon sunlight for your solar panels, so you need extra storage to build up the trickle feed of lower generation rates. Combustible fuels by contrast can generate a lot of power with a very little kick-start. ie: easily ramped up.
reply
In short, we can, but it's lacking the infrastructure that fossil fuel -sourced energy has built up, meaning we can't presently rely on only green energy sources.
Nuclear is a good substitute for carbon-sourced energy generation on a large scale with high efficiency, but it shifts the issues from polluting the sky to polluting the ground (underground, in caves, mostly. Less immediately impactful, and likely a much slower-building issue than CO2 pollution, but still a limited-time use solution.
Of particular shortfall for green energy is the lack of immediate, on-demand use. You can't just summon the wind to spin a turbine or demand the clouds clear or night end to summon sunlight for your solar panels, so you need extra storage to build up the trickle feed of lower generation rates. Combustible fuels by contrast can generate a lot of power with a very little kick-start. ie: easily ramped up.
reply
Double
Thanks for not completely demonizing nuclear power. I wish you had gone into more on how some green power sources aren't environmentally friendly at all. Lots of land needs to be cleared for solar and wind power, killing plants and wildlife. Solar tower plants vaporize birds in mid-air. Wind power continuously kills endangered birds and bats. Hydro dams hurt fish populations. And let's not forget all the electric cars powered on by coal power. No power source is free of harming the environment - but people all around the globe need more of it to raise living standards.
reply
Thanks for not completely demonizing nuclear power. I wish you had gone into more on how some green power sources aren't environmentally friendly at all. Lots of land needs to be cleared for solar and wind power, killing plants and wildlife. Solar tower plants vaporize birds in mid-air. Wind power continuously kills endangered birds and bats. Hydro dams hurt fish populations. And let's not forget all the electric cars powered on by coal power. No power source is free of harming the environment - but people all around the globe need more of it to raise living standards.
reply
Richard_N
Solar power is way overrated. Even with all the improvements, it's still a very unreliable way to power things. It's nothing more than a supplement to other choices. Wind power with the big blades is already dying out. It's horrible for birds and very maintenance intensive. The contained blade structures are the future, but again, it's a bit unreliable like solar. Hydroelectric is great as long as you maintain it properly. Nuclear is the most reliable by far and will be the final answer if we ever figure out fusion.
reply
Solar power is way overrated. Even with all the improvements, it's still a very unreliable way to power things. It's nothing more than a supplement to other choices. Wind power with the big blades is already dying out. It's horrible for birds and very maintenance intensive. The contained blade structures are the future, but again, it's a bit unreliable like solar. Hydroelectric is great as long as you maintain it properly. Nuclear is the most reliable by far and will be the final answer if we ever figure out fusion.
reply
James
Doing this without nuclear power is something only championed by environmentalists without educations. Why do so many renewable lobbyist fail to recognize the arguments put forth by statistics like: deaths/kwh, life cycle carbon outputs, accident frequency and kwh/hectare of arable land? They all promote nuclear power as a safer alternative to most renewables, on those basis; which are the most relevant in regards to the environment and anthro. climate change.
reply
Doing this without nuclear power is something only championed by environmentalists without educations. Why do so many renewable lobbyist fail to recognize the arguments put forth by statistics like: deaths/kwh, life cycle carbon outputs, accident frequency and kwh/hectare of arable land? They all promote nuclear power as a safer alternative to most renewables, on those basis; which are the most relevant in regards to the environment and anthro. climate change.
reply
RhizometricReality
One of the things I always find silly is how we have failed to find a way to extract electrons from a substance without combustion.
The industry keep saying that gasoline is very energy dense.
But it seems very energy inefficient every time we have to combust it.
I'm sure someone with a degree in this subject will tell me why it's not possible but I think it's silly that we have failed to figure this out
reply
One of the things I always find silly is how we have failed to find a way to extract electrons from a substance without combustion.
The industry keep saying that gasoline is very energy dense.
But it seems very energy inefficient every time we have to combust it.
I'm sure someone with a degree in this subject will tell me why it's not possible but I think it's silly that we have failed to figure this out
reply
Mathew
The danger of nuclear energy is really exaggerated. Nuclear technology and safety practices has improved immensely since Chernobyl. Also breeder reactors and decommissioning of nuclear weapons are and will continue to be a great source of nuclear fuel. Nuclear energy is the safest and space efficient clean energy that we need to better utilize. Thank you for pointing out the death rate per energy source at 9: 42
reply
The danger of nuclear energy is really exaggerated. Nuclear technology and safety practices has improved immensely since Chernobyl. Also breeder reactors and decommissioning of nuclear weapons are and will continue to be a great source of nuclear fuel. Nuclear energy is the safest and space efficient clean energy that we need to better utilize. Thank you for pointing out the death rate per energy source at 9: 42
reply
tjl102
Gas helps the environment, in 2020 (the year no one drove) temperature rose, again dispite the world cutting emotions by over 90%. What happened was the world released methane, a extremely potent greenhouse gas, and it just sat there. Now gas burning produces carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide reacts with methane to produce water and carbon dioxide, using cars slows the rate of global cooling. Isn't science fun.
reply
Gas helps the environment, in 2020 (the year no one drove) temperature rose, again dispite the world cutting emotions by over 90%. What happened was the world released methane, a extremely potent greenhouse gas, and it just sat there. Now gas burning produces carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide reacts with methane to produce water and carbon dioxide, using cars slows the rate of global cooling. Isn't science fun.
reply
MrZacchery
Give me an electronic snowplow that can get traction in the steep icy mountains! I want something, but the only things that work are vehicles like a skidsteer or Toolcat. I would love to stop using fuel, but no electric options for us in deep in small town MT. Please list product names below! I will research any options!
reply
Give me an electronic snowplow that can get traction in the steep icy mountains! I want something, but the only things that work are vehicles like a skidsteer or Toolcat. I would love to stop using fuel, but no electric options for us in deep in small town MT. Please list product names below! I will research any options!
reply
Premo
I think the solution is simple. combine the technology. If we found a way to combine solar, wind, and hydro we would save on surface area. We have enough innovative techies to get this done. It would just take lots of money. Batteries underground to help compensate for peak usage hours.
reply
I think the solution is simple. combine the technology. If we found a way to combine solar, wind, and hydro we would save on surface area. We have enough innovative techies to get this done. It would just take lots of money. Batteries underground to help compensate for peak usage hours.
reply
Aleksejs
50/50
Hydroelectric Power - kill the river ecosystem.
Battery + Solar & Wind Power - kill the ecosystem of entire countries.
Good marketing, poor knowledge of elementary school physics.
Rare earth minerals are poisoning the earth and water all over the planet.
reply
50/50
Hydroelectric Power - kill the river ecosystem.
Battery + Solar & Wind Power - kill the ecosystem of entire countries.
Good marketing, poor knowledge of elementary school physics.
Rare earth minerals are poisoning the earth and water all over the planet.
reply
GeRg
Would it make sense to create more power storage inside and/or nearby the homes and businesses that are using the electricity? My thought being that having more locations to tap into power, we could stabilize the rate of demand. idk, thoughts?
reply
Would it make sense to create more power storage inside and/or nearby the homes and businesses that are using the electricity? My thought being that having more locations to tap into power, we could stabilize the rate of demand. idk, thoughts?
reply
DASH
Yea, its way better having children manning precious green energy minerals in counties lacking standards for energy devices that will never recoup half the energy to build. Total fraud is what the climate change/global warming agenda is
reply
Yea, its way better having children manning precious green energy minerals in counties lacking standards for energy devices that will never recoup half the energy to build. Total fraud is what the climate change/global warming agenda is
reply
William
If the electricity produced to charge electric vehicles are from fossil fuel electric generating companies, the electric vehicles are not carbon neutral. Many election vehicles are being charged by fossil fuel powered generators.
reply
If the electricity produced to charge electric vehicles are from fossil fuel electric generating companies, the electric vehicles are not carbon neutral. Many election vehicles are being charged by fossil fuel powered generators.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
