Enter the Quantum
Richard Wolfson Lyrics

No lyrics text found for this track.

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

Comments from YouTube:

@shafi675

3y↑2

Very informative

@romaingay6211

3y↑1

I feel there hasn’t been enough emphasis on the intermittency of the solar energy: apparently solar PV cost has plummeted, now lower even than coal at 1.34$/W. Does that take into account the cost of storage? If so, which storage technology, and how much storage capacity? I doubt stacking up lithium batteries worth months of storage is economically viable. Are we expecting to see storage cost plummet as well? It was said in the Q&A that some thermal solar facilities have some sort of storage; are these economically competitive with nuclear? As for inter-continental electric transmission, does that even work?

@ajaysingh9125

3y↑1

Very nice 👍

@RiDankulous

Compelling arguments. It reminds me of the concepts that are relative, not absolute, like security, or safety. A great deal of talk in various security and safety realms will demonize certain modes without quantifying the actual amount with supporting research. I grew up in a heavy industry city in the Midwest in the 70s, and 80s to a lesser extent. The sulfur, the coughing. Coal is just nasty. Yeah, I'm not quantifying it. But I can get behind the statistics regarding death by coal.

The breakdown of energy production types for the 3 selected states: that discussion was very good, and I am impressed by Iowa, but they have the option due to geography for good wind, unlike many other states, plus they can make quicker changes to their production types since they are relatively small producer compared to the top generating states.

@NeilRieck

3y↑1

I was under the impression that the CANDU heavy water reactors designed-built by Canada were the safest, did not require refined fuel, and could burn waste fuel (DUPIC).

@victorgabr

3y↑7

It's funny that sometimes fanatics like to cite Chernobyl as a reason for banning nuclear power, but comparing that to modern nuclear reactors we have today. They are like trying to ban Tesla cars because the first generation of vehicles with no seat belts were dangerous.

@ryanmckim9501

Nice

@joemerino3243

3y↑6

Ignores the tremendous pollution caused by production of solar panels, and trivializes the intermittency problem. He just assumes we'll find workable storage solutions, and that solar panels powering a suburban home means that solar panels can power industrial or large urban needs. Think about the roof area to power needs of a decent sized home for two people vs. a ten-story apartment complex.
If we had put the research and subsidies into next-gen nuclear that we have put into solar and wind we would already have nuclear power plants that weren't designed in the 1950's.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk

3y↑1

Spot on, and with the announcements of auto manufacturers and governments intents on electric vehicles, the future looks bleak indeed with lithium mining and toxicity to the environment. As you said, we don't have a viable energy storage method for renewables to work.

@RiDankulous

Solar is a good piece but yeah, it's intermittent and locations used is geographically restricted.

@michaelmcphillips4079

Solar and wind have no nuclear waste, do not need a great deal of fresh water for cooling and storage - I think in France it takes about 20% of its water - do not pollute the seas with radioactive water, and do not take 20 years production to pay for the CO2 emitted in building them.

@hewdelfewijfe

France's reactors do not release radioactive water. Get better sources.

@frankyflowers

i thought he said welcome to toxic google

@RiDankulous

haha

@johnkechagais7096

A nuanced response to the use of nuclear energy, I think the best response to nuclear is to keep the nuclear going as long as possible while renewables ramp up.

@hewdelfewijfe

Very poor job discussing the economics without mentioning the massive subsidies, direct and indirect, that go to renewables in the US. This includes renewable energy credits, but also renewable energy portfolio standards. It also includes the obvious subsidies for providing reliable power to match demand which wind and solar cannot do on their own. These indirect subsidies also include things like passing on the costs of extra transmission and capacity payments to customers instead of to the solar and wind generators which necessitate these extra grid costs. These indirect subsidies also include things like grid inertia, frequency control services, and blackstart capability. Nuclear cannot compete in the markets /as they are currently structured/, and they have been carefully structured in order to penalize nuclear and favor solar, wind, and natural gas.

@Dom-xd4lq

3y↑1

first? wooo first

@hewdelfewijfe

Presenting energy production inside of individual states to show that a quick transition to 60% or something wind is possible - that's dishonest. You give an offhand mention, lampshade hanging almost, to the reason why it's dishonest, which is grid connections to other states. No way that a single US state could keep the grid on with 60% or something wind. Again, the way that you presented it has so much spin that the only way to properly describe this is flagrantly, willfully dishonest.