How green is the energy revolution really?

A 20 minutes documentary, and they don't talk about the graph sowing global energy consumption by source, you can see that fossil fuel based generation has continuously grown, and green energy, including nuclear, are nowhere near being able to replace it, not even close. This is more important than the guy replacing engine with motors in old Cobra cars. England would need to build 15 nuclear plants, not 1, and the same for all the other countries.

Germany wouldn't be so dependent on fossil fuels if they weren't so irrationally afraid of nuclear power.

I am amazed that there wasn't more focus on large energy storage. If the grid is based mostly on fluctuating sources, storage is a must

Pleased to see nuclear power is being recognised as a vital component in this transition. Upcoming micro-reactors that can power towns or small cities will provide energy security and resilience to external threats.

"Sounds like money to me". If you can get someone from Texas to say that, you have been striking "oil".

Praising war for accelerating transition to renewables is just insane and people who support this should see their therapist.

EV Conversions like e-Muscle will always be a niche market as long as conversions are more expensive than used, original EVs. One company that is breaking the price barrier is EV-Evolution EU, which offers a variety of standardized kits for popular vehicle models. For example, a kit with a 20 kWh battery and 20 kW motor sells for 8000 €.

Fair enough but this is essentially just an update on how the energy transition is going, without really qualifying whether it is green. Aside from acknowledging that coal use is bigger than ever, it didn't dig into why this is – predominantly because without coal steel manufacture as practised today wouldn't be possible. The material cost of the "green" transition is staggering and will require drawing more on natural resources than ever before as we try to view it. This from the IEA highlights the challenge: 'Electric car production is the major driver for energy transition metals demand (responsible for 50-60% of the overall), followed by electricity networks and solar photovoltaics production (35-45%), and then other technologies the remaining 5%.'

Energy security can never come from intermittent solar and wind.

calling nuclear energy old is a bit odd, no? first NPP started in 1954, while the first solar panel operated in 1881 and electric wind turbine in 1883.

One group of protestors I don't get are the ones protesting against the expansion of Tesla's factory near Berlin. What are they trying to accomplish?

I’m certainly a proponent of green energy in regions where it can be used effectively. But I do think that overall, nuclear is the way to go. Or perhaps Thorium as a replacement for Uranium? It seems like some people have an irrational fear of nuclear energy for the same reason that so many developed an irrational fear of sharks after Jaws was released. Even though you are statistically more likely to die from a falling coconut than from a shark attack.

When people say 'this is not a perfect solution' i think, so? Do you like to just complain, or do you have a better suggestion? So far, no one has had a better suggestion.

There is a certain irony in the fact that people are suddenly concerned about the environmental impact of mining when it has been happening for centuries. And it's not just fossil fuels that are mined in environmentally harmful ways; all sorts of minerals, including those used in renewable energy technologies, are extracted from the earth with significant environmental consequences. This doesn't mean that we should stop mining altogether. Minerals are essential for our modern way of life, and we need them to produce everything from smartphones to solar panels. However, we do need to find ways to mine in a more sustainable way. This will require a combination of technological innovation, stricter regulations, and a shift in public attitudes towards mining.

As much as I support their intent and message, destroying works of art is completely counter-productive to their, and our, cause. Protest and disruption is one thing, pointless destruction is another.

A cheaper alternative to wind and solar is nuclear. Nuclear is net zero emissions. And 100 fold more efficient. That should be our focus. As a bonus that decreases our need for Chinese batteries and solar panels.

I am perplexed... Stop fossil resources by 2030, but with what do they propose to replace it with? For energy, I acknowledge that there are options, but for carbon required for the rest we require to live? The paint/ink they used for their banners, the laptop they used for their discussions, cellphones, not to mention things like toilet plumbing, interiors of EVs, components for BESS, cable sheaths and and and... Come with a solution - green energy does not solve that, unless the plan is to go back to living in forests, walk to protests and communicate via pigeons again. Fossil can't be stopped by 2030 - it is not possible. Using biomass is an insanely flawed option, unless we want to harm the earth even more. A compromise between fossil and green energy will be required.

Only way for energy transition is to make them cheap and easily available. Forcing people will never work.

The message of these videos is quite worrying. It is well known that it's impossible to switch to renewables maintaining this level of consumption. I don't think people understand what that really means.

Great strides being made, and more remains to be done. I hoped to see something about the promising breakthroughs of nuclear fusion which if made economically viable at large scale can sound the death knell for fossil fuels use in electricity production in the West.