The INSANE challenge of a carbon free grid - Possible?

Let’s dive into the big question: What would it take to reach 100% fossil fuel-free energy, and is it even possible? With renewable energy costs dropping, we explore the challenges, future growth, and what a fully green grid might cost. Coal use in U.S. power plants peaked in 2005 and has since been on a steep decline, while wind and solar are steadily rising. Yet, non-fossil fuel sources like wind, solar, and nuclear still make up only 39% of electricity production.

》》》SUPPORT THE SHOW!《《《

》》》OUR PARTNERS《《《

》》》GOING SOLAR?《《《

》》》COMPANY OUTREACH 《《《

》》》CONNECT WITH US 《《《

》》》About Ricky 《《《
Ricky is a dynamic individual whose journey from mechanical engineering to software development reflects his passion for learning and resilience. A proud Berkeley graduate, Ricky spent years working on advanced aircraft for the Navy, sharpening his technical skills. Driven by curiosity, he taught himself software engineering, expanding his expertise into the digital world.

His love for knowledge and teaching inspired him to create a YouTube channel, where he shares well-researched, engaging content. Beyond his professional achievements, Ricky is a devoted father and husband, admired for his ability to balance career, family, and his passion for inspiring others.

Thanks for watching.

Sources;

#RenewableEnergy #CleanEnergy #FossilFuels #SolarPower #WindPower #NuclearEnergy #EnergyTransition #SustainableEnergy #GreenEnergy #ClimateAction #NetZero #EnergyGrid #ElectricityProduction #CarbonEmissions #EnergyEconomics #Decarbonization #FutureOfEnergy #EnergyInnovation #ZeroEmissions #PowerPlants #EnergyGrowth #CoalDecline #WindAndSolar #100%renewable #renewableenergy #

[Tom-dtic]

You also have to subtract out what we would have to spend on power generation for the next 15 years if wind and solar didn't exist. Surely this is a very large number. And while your at it, you could also subtract out the lower cost of hospital visits for kids with asthma, or lung cancer treatments, etc., etc. Not to mention the lower cost of having to deal with global warming, the biggest number of them all. And of course when you do all that, going all renewable is actually way, way, WAY cheaper than continuing to burn dinosaurs.

[LjLaValle]

Don't forget about wave power, underwater turbines (like in the East river in Manhattan), piezo electric, and thermo ways to generate clean energy.
Great rundown on costs and feasibility!

[rhiantaylor]

People are starting to understand that you need 2x or 3x Solar PV or Wind capacity, as compared to Coal or Gas to meet the same demand because the wind doesn't always blow nor the sun shine so, when it does, you need to charge your battery storage.

[danesummerfield]

It would be interesting to see the cost of continuing status quo as a comparison.

[aleci]

It's fair to say that wind and solar energy are likely to grow significantly. However, I'm not entirely convinced that energy consumption will continue to increase at the same pace. Experts working with AI and large data centers have already pointed out that the world currently lacks sufficient power to meet future demands, especially with the rapid expansion of data centers, which reportedly consume an enormous amount of energy. I've heard of instances where the heat generated by data centers is put to good use, but I'm not sure if this is something they take into account when designing new centers today.

[chriswheeler]

It isn’t domestic heating making icelands consumption high. It is cheap geothermal power leading to industrial companies needing huge amounts of power relocating there. Eg Aluminium.

[fountainvalley]

I would say your assumptions related to storage are incorrect. First if you only get 5 hours of usable sunlight you’re going to need 19 hours of storage. Basically if you want one megawatt of continuous power you will need 5 megawatts of solar and 19 megawatts hours of storage. In that five hours you must generate one megawatt base load and four additional to charge the batteries.

[SvetzBowman]

I think your researchers got hood-winked on this.
That $2 trillion over ~20 years isn't a new cost... it's a replacement cost. If we weren't building solar farms we'd be building replacement fossil fuel plants as the old ones wear out. That is it's not "new" money we need to find somewhere. It's money we're already paying out that is just being moved from fossil fuel companies to renewable companies. As the costs are less then what we're doing now it actually saves us money.... that is it doesn't cost us anything more than what we were doing - we essentially solve the problem for free, but from your video it makes it sound like the price tag is an additional $2T. People look at that narrative and get scared about the economy so don't want to switch when the reality is if they knew how much less it costs them they'd want to switch faster. Two other thoughts: first climate change already costs us ($600 billion in 2023 from weather disasters alone) and mitigating the problem is a part of the savings. Secondly, private industry pays for it as government hasn't privatized energy generation - that is the average person just keeps paying their utility bill and with renewable costs coming down will pay less than they are now...no new taxes needed.

[mcqueen]

A few other things to consider:
We will need to add generation no matter what, as demand increases. The addition of renewable sources will be cheaper than adding coal or gas, and is cheaper than replacing or even maintaining and fueling those emitting sources. The numbers do look daunting, but are big no matter which direction we take. Renewables will however be cheaper in the long run, so this is more of an investment than a cost.
Storage can be offset significantly by mass deployment of V2G technology and smart grid technology. This can help reduce curtailment, meaning we'll have a place to put the energy produced on those sunny or windy days, and have energy available when and where it is needed. This can also help offset the cost of EV ownership as drivers can sell their cheap electrons at higher rates when demand is high.
People might think this is all going to be government spending, and I get why its helpful to look at it that way to envision the cost. Much of the cost will be paid in the private sector, like people buying EVs and private producers installing renewables. And don't forget, we create massive deficits for much less public good, such as the 2017 giveaway that went to stock buy-backs and executive bonuses, creating the biggest deficits in history.

[LyuboRyuk]

Compare it to the money we already spent on building and/or repairing and maintaining all existing power plants in the last 40-50 years.

[bartroberts]

The assumptions in the model are very suspect, but it does have some benefits as a model. Suppose that $2 Trillion were put into a wartime-effort level transition, and the US hit 100% renewable by 2030. The grid would be benefitting from FCAS, Automated Impedance Matching, time of day arbitrage, and 40% lower costs per MWh. Battery storage earns its own cost (about half the transition expense) from such grid services within 30 months, so pays for itself eight times over in the first 25 years. That's $8 Trillion USD pumped into the energy economy for a mere $2 Trillion investment.
Healthcare savings from smog elimination would be some ten times that, including days lost from work, hospitalization costs, disability and premature death.
The boost to the economy of cheaper power, jobs closer to community, home and family, and more employment, another 6% compounded annually, for a return of $6.6 Trillion over 25 years.

[davidroberts]

I read an article somewhere this week about a wind power system that had like 100 small wind turbines put in like a large wall type grid. The article said it was more efficient than the large wind turbines and most of the system was recyclable.

[MarkShapiro-mr]

The variable you call the "efficiency factor" for solar and wind is actually called "capacity factor". This is an important variable for all sources of electricity that is well measured and reported.

[KevinLyda]

Here's the problem with this: when I switched my home to a heat pump and an EV (so an all-electric house) my electricity usage tripled. The bulk being the heat pump. So I think the 1% growth rate for usage is too small. Note: my *energy* usage dropped by 2/3rds. But electricity tripled.

Also, it's seems plausible this might drive energy costs down. Especially on solar since around half of solar is residential and on commercial premises. To a limited degree, also true for battery storage.

[josdesouza]

Kudos to Mr. Roy! Awesome presentation!

[mikeservillo]

First of all, let me say that I love your program and am a subscriber. I think we have to keep in mind that heavy-duty pickup trucks and trucks in general are necessary. We have not developed a pickup truck that will do the job of my two trucks, and I understand that we're on our way to that. But we are not there yet, and we also are not yet in a position where our grid would support an all-electric vehicle system.
The next item I'd like to address is that for those of us who live in rural areas, the cost of transportation and trucking is way higher than for those who live in cities. As for myself,  I always want to have the right to live where I am comfortable. Your numbers are good, and the possibilities are fantastic, but we are not there yet, and the investment is enormous. As a side note,  I own a totally off-grid home. I clearly understand the cost of that; when you are your own water company,  power company,  and gas company,  it becomes a whole different way of life. And it is everything but free. Thank you for letting me ramble Mike

[alphaomega]

I've always been a proponent of distributed power sources. Localized hydrogen production from solar and wind, stored locally in low pressure tanks. This is then fed into local fuel cells to provide power. You could potentially power up to 10 homes with a system like this.

[ronwhite]

where is maintenance cost !!! the systems wear out,

[daemenoth]

One thing that would really help with reducing the amount of energy storage we need would be running more heavy power use companies that don't already run 24 hours to switch to using their energy overnight. Tying any industry that can use power at excess production times of wind and solar over battery capacity would also be helpful, things like desalination especially operations that can use specific wavelength light to break apart the water into mist.

[MinotaurUK]

I suspect there's going to be a 'law of diminishing returns'. Whilst (obviously) 100% renewable energy is desirable, it makes sense to focus on the low hanging fruit - that is to say, decarbonising the things that can be quickly/easily decarbonised first.

Personal transport (cars), light commercial, home/business heating and cooling, and electricity generation are a lot easier to decarbonise than aviation or global shipping, for example.

We might also have to consider, at least until we can install energy storage at grid scale (which probably means something not lithium), keeping some gas fired stations online, but not producing electricity in large quantities, just to have the surge capacity to maintain grid stability and make up the shortfall when wind/PV is unable to meet demand.