cross-posted from: https://lazysoci.al/post/14253829

Summary: The video is about the challenges of decarbonizing the world economy and why capitalism is not an effective solution, according to the guest speaker Brett Christophers. Christophers is interviewed by Aaron Bastani on Novara Media.

The conversation starts with the confusion around the term "Net Zero." Christophers explains the difference between Net Zero and real zero emissions. Net Zero allows emissions as long as they are offset by carbon capture or sequestration.

Christophers argues that governments are not serious about decarbonization because they continue to grant new oil and gas exploration licenses. He also criticizes the over-reliance on future, unproven technologies for capturing carbon emissions.

The interview then covers why electrification is critical for mitigating climate change. Christophers explains that most greenhouse gas emissions come from burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. Therefore, decarbonizing the electricity sector is the most important strategy.

The conversation then dives into the challenges of transitioning to renewable energy sources. Christophers acknowledges that solar and wind are not perfect solutions because they are intermittent sources of energy. He also discusses the land-use challenges of building large-scale solar and wind farms.

Nuclear power is brought up as a potential solution, especially for large companies that need consistent baseload power. Christophers says that governments should incentivize the development of all carbon-free energy sources, including nuclear.

The video concludes with Christophers arguing that capitalism is not a solution to the climate crisis because it prioritizes the interests of capital over the well-being of the planet.

Summary: This video talks about a misconception about switching away from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources. The video argues that we don't need to replace all fossil fuels, but rather focus on inefficiency in the energy system.

The video introduces a flow chart called Sankey diagram which depicts how energy flows through a system. It divides energy into four stages: primary, secondary, final and useful energy. Primary energy is the original source like coal or wind. Secondary energy is a transformed version for easier transportation, like electricity. Final energy is delivered to users and useful energy is the energy that is actually used.

The inefficiency exists throughout the energy flow. Most wasted energy happens when we convert primary energy to secondary energy, and from final energy to useful energy. For example, when we burn fossil fuels to generate electricity in a power plant, a majority of the heat is lost to the environment. Similarly, a gas stove wastes most of the energy from burning the gas as ambient heat in your kitchen.

The video argues that if we focus on improving efficiency, we would need much less renewable energy to replace fossil fuels. For example, switching to electric vehicles and induction stoves would significantly reduce energy waste.

Overall, the video suggests that switching away from fossil fuels is not as difficult as it seems, because improving energy efficiency can significantly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

Hey there ;-)

These are my own thoughts about the US-China PV trade tariffs.

My goal is to point out how solar installations are a good thing. And US should lower tariffs on PV imports.

Here are my points:

• National security:

It has been argued that by relying on Chinese solar panel imports, the US makes itself dependent on China in a critical part of the economy.

I disagree with this point of view:

Solar panels are a very durable product, and once installed, can last easily for 20+ years. There is no urgent, or immediate need to replace them, in case a US-China war breaks out. Therefore, the US does not make itself more dependent on China energy-wise by importing solar panels.

Actually, quite the opposite is the case IMO:

In case WW3 breaks out (let's hope not but what if), then the US would be vulnerable by being dependent on fossil fuel imports that have to be shipped daily, or at least, regularly. By installing solar panels, they do no longer depend on recurring, regular imports. (Because solar panels only have to be imported once, not regularly).

• Economic arguments:

It is argued that by fostering the domestic solar panel production capability within the US, that could drastically make the domestic economy grow. It has been argued that instating tariffs on Chinese solar panel imports, and using the so-collected tariff money to subsidize the domestic solar panel market, would foster that goal.

I want to show that, while this is true, also the opposite is true:

Lowering tariffs has the consequence of providing even cheaper energy to the domestic economy, thus making all production (and therefore virtually every product in the market) cheaper, which stimulates the economy and increases the economy overall (price elasticity).

So we have to compare the economic benefit of producing solar panels domestically, against the economic boost that cheaper energy provides. I would say (due to my gut feeling) that the second clearly outweighs the first, so the economy actually profits in total, if solar panel tariffs are dropped, because energy becomes cheaper and stimulates the economy.

Edit:

To the downvoter(s), please explain why you disagree. Or is it just not the appropriate place to discuss these things? If so, where would be a better place?

Nice tool to get an idea of different electricity markets.

But no country has come close to matching the scale and tenacity of China’s support. The proof is in the production: In 2022, Beijing accounted for 85 percent of all clean-energy manufacturing investment in the world, according to the International Energy Agency.

Now the United States, Europe and other wealthy nations are trying frantically to catch up.

I believe Two Bit DaVinci covered this a while back, but I could be wrong, oh well, summary:

This video talks about a new technology that could revolutionize geothermal energy. Geothermal energy is a clean and renewable source of energy that uses heat from the Earth's core to generate electricity. However, traditional drilling methods cannot reach the deep, hot rocks that contain the most geothermal energy.

The new technology, developed by Quaise Energy, uses a microwave beam to vaporize rock. This allows them to drill much deeper and faster than traditional methods. The microwave beam is created using a gyrotron, which is a device commonly used to heat plasmas in fusion reactors.

Quaise Energy is planning to test their technology in the field later this year. If successful, this could mean that geothermal energy could be a major source of clean energy in the future.

Here are some of the key points from the video:

• Traditional geothermal drilling methods cannot reach the deep, hot rocks that contain the most geothermal energy.
• Quaise Energy's new technology uses a microwave beam to vaporize rock, allowing them to drill much deeper and faster.
• The microwave beam is created using a gyrotron, a device commonly used to heat plasmas in fusion reactors.
• Quaise Energy is planning to test their technology in the field later this year.
• If successful, this could mean that geothermal energy could be a major source of clean energy in the future.

I hope this summary is helpful!

Edit: Nope, it was Matt Ferrell https://youtu.be/g8sjdOjNxIE

geteilt von: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/16280452

Archive link