Dark

Can A City Run On 100% Renewable Energy?

The Good Stuff
Subscribe
Views 248 207
95% 5 574 267

In 2014 Burlington, Vermont became the first city in the United States to run on 100% Renewable Energy. But how do they actually do it? What’s their secret?
Thanks to Miguel Franco for helping to make this episode possible
ruvid.net/u-marioofsevenstars
Special Thanks To:
Neile Lunderville, Miro Weinberger, Mike Kanarick, Dave MacDonnell, Jon Clark and the Burlington Electric Department
www.burlingtonelectric.com/

►Subscribe: ruvid.net/u-thegoodstuff
►Let us know what you think of our show!: bit.ly/1UO0hBN
►Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/thegoodstuff
►Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/goodstuffshow
►Follow us on instagram: goodstuffshow
►Like us on facebook: facebook.com/thegoodstuffshow
Digital street team: goodstuffshow.com/digitalstreetteam
Sign up for our mailing list: eepurl.com/bnSOcH
The Good Stuff is a proud member of the PBS Digital Studios family
__________________________________________________________________
Music by:
Amarante
www.amarantemusic.com/
Driftless Pony Club
www.driftlessponyclub.com/
Whirm
whirm.com/
Rob Scallon
ruvid.net/u-robscallon
Jason Shaw
audionautix.com/

Published on

 

Jul 21, 2016

Share:

Link:

Download:

Loading link...

Add to:

My playlist
Watch later
Comments 1 126
Elijah Thompson
Elijah Thompson 5 days ago
What about bamboo
makr
makr 29 days ago
why they dont do that for the entire usa , instead of investing huge sums of money in weapons and wars and army usa can invest a small amount of war money in clean green energy
CAG Hotshot
CAG Hotshot Month ago
This video makes me laugh... This is no different than burning coal... Same CO2 output... No reductions. Yet all the Millennials are eating it up... Burning biomass needs scrubbers just like coal or oil.. Burning natural gas is actually cleaner than biomass... and there is enough natural gas to power the US for 400 years... Also if the wind dies out or cloudy days come they have to buy the same power... Essentially this is pretty much the same as any other power company, but a bit dirtier due to the wood chip burning...
đeri662
đeri662 Month ago
Burning excess biomass is basically carbon-neutral - it absorbs carbon from the air during growth, carbon is emitted back into the atmosphere while burning in the form of CO2. It needs scrubbers to remove PM, it doesn't produce emissions like SO2, NOX like coal and oil do. Burning natural gas can be very clean, but it's not carbon neutral (it actually is but it takes millions of years). If we won't have a massive breakthrough in energy storage, wind and solar will produce only up to maybe 25 % of world's electricity. There is a lot of hydroelectric potential in Asia, Africa, South America, which is unused. There is a lot of potential in geothermal in some places, where it's cost-effective. And the one source of electricity that could be the most promising for the near future, nuclear. If we make the right decisions, we could have low CO2 emissions, cheap and clean electricity and at the same time stable power grids and reliable electricity supply like we do today in most developed places.
david scott
david scott Month ago
so you can harvest trees to power your home, but you cannot harvest trees to build you home. what is the CO2 footprint for producing wood chips as opposed the CO2 footprint for producing naturau gas?
Safir
Safir Month ago
In my opinion we should genetically engineer a tree that grows extremely quickly. That could reduce the amount of space people need the trees to grow in.
Mark Heslep
Mark Heslep Month ago
It "felt nice"? Does this PBS idiot also review medical technology, maybe brain surgery.
Mark Heslep
Mark Heslep Month ago
Of course, dozens of entire countries run on RE in the form hydro electric power. Intermittent power like solar and wind does not run anything 100%. Burning up trees doesnt scale nor should it given the traditional emissions like particulates and NOx (a lot more per unit than coal).
sleeplesseye
sleeplesseye Month ago
Their secret is that they falsely claim that burning trees is green, because trees grow back. The American Lung Assoc. said that such plants create about 50% more pollution and CO2 than coal plants, and that none of the plants in question have any kind of requirement or plan for making sure that the trees that are chipped and burned by the plants are actually regrown. It is literally like burning down the Amazon and calling it green, because trees grow back... albeit much later, and only if the trees are allowed to regrow.
SWOBIZ
SWOBIZ Month ago
Not one mention of cost, except for the unquestioned assertion that government conservation subsidies are cheaper than buying grid power. At least they do admit that fluctuating renewable output must be backed up by reliable grid power. Otherwise, there would be brown outs and black outs in Burlington.
jessie mayfield
jessie mayfield 2 months ago
This place is cool af, and I love cities like this
red fish head
red fish head Month ago
jessie mayfield same!
David Herrera
David Herrera 2 months ago
Costa Rica has been living with renewable energy for more than a year.
Adventures with Frodo
It is not very green it is releasing a lot of CO2. Twin Falls ID has been existed with renewable resource for more then 50yrs. Burlington suxs.
BIKRAM PATRA
BIKRAM PATRA 3 months ago
Solar & wind energy is green,clean energy
DMP Me
DMP Me 3 months ago
" New Trees absorb more carbon than old trees "
Curt D
Curt D 3 months ago
I thought hydro was no longer considered renewable?
ano T
ano T 3 months ago
One nuke plant could power almost the entire state
ano T
ano T 3 months ago
A city that can never grow because you don't have enough power. Chicago over a million people. What are these people doing to the fish with that hydro power?
Sebastian Altman
Sebastian Altman 3 months ago
@5:58 Is that true? Younger trees soak up more carbon than older trees? What about that older and therefore larger trees sequester more carbon, and so the offset is negligible? I would think that larger trees can soak up more carbon because they have more surface area, volume, cells, and resources to soak up that carbon. Can I please get a citation or source for this statement?
neil kaushik
neil kaushik 3 months ago
cool
Chris Malan
Chris Malan 3 months ago
According to Wikipedia Burlington only has about 43,000 people - a reasonably sized town, not a city. Try this with a population of 1million.
Keluarga Surya
Keluarga Surya 3 months ago
Incredible city
djbmw1
djbmw1 3 months ago
Hydro has powered towns and cities for hundreds of years. The problem is when you say "100%" because you're then talking about the generators, steel framed buildings, copper wires to run electricity, etc.
Bob Bresnahan
Bob Bresnahan 3 months ago
This story is why I stopped talking about "renewable" energy. The reason is that carbon emissions are what we should be limiting, It's a case of being 100% renewable accurately getting in the way of eliminating carbon emissions from electricity. Remember, as we transition to EVs we'll have greater demand for electrical power plants. We'll see how much it plays out to, but it could be a lot.
LORDE 2729
LORDE 2729 4 months ago
i think with the tesla solar tiles those houses can make use of their roof spaces more efficiently and with the extra solar panel will be more then enough for a family unit of 4. i think only on peak summer and winter times they will only need to draw power from the grid cuz of AC and heaters . but i think AC and heaters are also getting more efficient
G G
G G 4 months ago
New trees don’t absorb more carbon than older trees. New *forests* do, but that benefit is lost from selective cutting.
Tony Chalmers
Tony Chalmers 4 months ago
Why can't they reuse the gas and waste that comes out.
Eduardo Gouvea
Eduardo Gouvea 4 months ago
If i get it right they are self sufficient, for me it is also a pro.
Daniel Ly
Daniel Ly 4 months ago
I don’t know if burning wood chips counts as green energy.
red fish head
red fish head Month ago
Same but I’m just saying it’s better than everything else
đeri662
đeri662 4 months ago
Why not? It's renewable if you don't overuse it, it is carbon neutral and all you need is a PM filter.
Tom Kelly
Tom Kelly 4 months ago
I would love to see Stan Meyers technology or the stuff that powers UFO's or Searl Effect generators to power the world. The internal combustion engine needs to be replaced and it looks like batteries will do it but still I want to see some real sci-fi energy production to come online. I am ready to kick the oil habit and the constant need for fuel or more energy. The bonds between atoms obviously hold massive amounts of power and when they are split we get nuclear bombs but short of that there must be a far less violent way to tap into that unlimited source of energy. Nuclear energy is fine but I don't know I am still convinced that by toying with radio frequencies, sound or magnetic energy we could hit that zero point jackpot and unleash tremendous amounts of safe, peaceful energy that can last very close to forever. For now though I am happy with my solar panels and batteries, off grid here in Canada
Tom Kelly
Tom Kelly 4 months ago
Northeastern USA including Vermont is powered by hydro dams in northern Quebec. That is where your power is being bought from. The whole province of Quebec is carbon free as is most of Canada. Hydro is king here with Nuclear picking up the remainder. Wind and solar are starting to come on line too. One city? That is cute but you gotta go way bigger then that! Vermont is a little state, why not power the whole state? I mean Quebec can do it for you really. They have some of the biggest hydro facilities in the world. Check it out. Large Nuclear and coal power plants look like childs' play compared to Quebec dams.
Tom Kelly
Tom Kelly 4 months ago
When it comes to ash, I just want to point out that when they study the regrowth in a clear cut forest vs the regrowth in an area that was burned by forest fire, the place that was burnt has 10x the regrowth. So please if you burn wood on a large or small scale, bring that ash back to help the forests grow 10x better. It is a very simple task and it makes a huge difference!
TrinidadLink Live Repairs
He is FULL of BS .. He jsut want to stay n business .... Cutting trees to burn them because they grow back does nothing for increasing demand .... and carbon emissions already causing the 1 degree and we're on the way to 1.5 to lead to global flooding ..... no nuclear ... jsut solar .. we use too much electricity and want to grow with stupid demands from general public who contribute nothing to the world ... jsut consume ... entertain and continue being stupid ..... Too much waste of human resource .. We need a population decrease .... carry on ..
lil abi
lil abi 4 months ago
There is nothing sustainable about biomass energy. It requires chopping down entire forests and then replacing those forests with monocultures of pine trees where there was once biodiversity. The science does not show that planting more trees counteracts the green house gases being burned. That's a completely made up statistic.
đeri662
đeri662 4 months ago
Do you have credible sources for these statements?
flipmane
flipmane 4 months ago
Interviewer- "What do you like about the city?" Mayor- "Oh man you know, it's a great city." Nice.
TrueNerd
TrueNerd 4 months ago
Ummm why not use coal and keep planting the same number of trees they are planting right now? The coal doesn't kill the existing trees!!!
Joseph Brendel
Joseph Brendel 4 months ago
BULLSHIT!!! THIS IS SO NOT REAL, THIS TOWN IS A PIMPLE ON THE STATES ASS!! IT CANT KEEP IT UP BECAUSE PAPER MILLS CPOMPETE FOR THOSE SAME CHIPS!!! JUST SAYING OLD ONE LEGGED JOSEPH T RETIRED NAVY
keshlalish
keshlalish 4 months ago
sure, drop a dozen or more panel on every building and plug them to the grid, that will do the trick
đeri662
đeri662 4 months ago
+keshlalish Your're right but doing this would be extremely expensive. Having a mix of clean power plants together with other grid stability measures like demand-side management is a lot better idea.
keshlalish
keshlalish 4 months ago
+đeri662 unless you regulate the amount of power you send when it is needed. if no power is needed panel turn off. add some powerwall to the houses and you would have an enormous amount of energy. every building could run ac and heat when needed, there could be more street lights, you could even put out charging station for e-cars. but it's an utopic idea
đeri662
đeri662 4 months ago
That would only cause blackout over the entire area of the power grid. Too much electricity in the grid is even worse than not enough electricity.
Jez
Jez 4 months ago
I stopped watching when I saw that a big part of their electricity came from burning wood chips.. LOL. what a joke. "renewables". How about people stop lying to themselves and just be honest.
đeri662
đeri662 4 months ago
If there is still a forest increment (more biomass is produced than consumed), then biomass is a renewable source.
Ahman Millener
Ahman Millener 4 months ago
If you look at the power companies today and from the past, this is everything they despise. Low cost power and efficiency. People like what they can get for less and eco friendly has proven it works even with upkeep.
Moonette Wolfsong
Moonette Wolfsong 4 months ago
The wood made me second guess things but I really like how they explained and talked about that in this video. Basically they are the guinea pig’s right now (as mentioned in another comment) and the renewable technology is still just beginning to kick off. So for me I see this city dropping the dependence on wood over the years as renewables get better. It’s a bit like other places that burn rubbish for energy short term but are also looking for alternative more renewable options. So I think the point here is to do the best you can do with what you have and learn from it so you can do better. As well as help guide others seeking to follow them to do better via shared experience, in this case. Great video, really informative and I really enjoyed it. :)
Alexander Kale
Alexander Kale 5 months ago
1 percent solar. Even among renewables, Solar power is the ugly little duckling....
BBarnes
BBarnes 5 months ago
thorium reactors. Look it up and do an story on it. Its where we need to be as a nation.
CollegeTalkTV
CollegeTalkTV 5 months ago
All for renewable energy and making the world a cleaner place. But dam Vermont's largest city only has 40,000 people. In Ohio that's like a suburb.
Baggie195 LGN_
Baggie195 LGN_ 5 months ago
Why is this even a question, the answer is obviously YES
Luigi
Luigi 5 months ago
Bruciare biomasse, come ogni altra cosa inquina! Se è la tua maggiore fonte green, non sei green. Imparate dall'Europa. 🇪🇺
Spooferish
Spooferish 5 months ago
Not convinced, still biomass produces carbon, so I won't say it's green.
đeri662
đeri662 4 months ago
It is said to be carbon neutral because the same amount of carbon is releases when burning as it is taken from the atmosphere when the tree is growing. If it wasn't burned, some of the carbon would turn into CH₄ (with decomposition), which has a a lot higher warming effect than CO₂, but some of the carbon would be burried into the ground. I don't know the actual numbers of what would be worse but I suspect the warming effect would be similar.
Michael
Michael 5 months ago
unfortunately, biomass is only available for certain cities you couldn't do it in places like nevada and solar just wont cute at least not without government subsidies and wont generate enough power also in terms of long term I don't think it can be sustainable
Anup
Anup 5 months ago
Fake news. There is a cost associated with transporting the wood chips to the plant and the ash . Typical left liberal democrat bs. What we need is bigger nuclear plants.
sam guapo
sam guapo 5 months ago
It's 2018. Solar alone with batteries can handle the entire city. The justification of the guy on how they offset pollution is kinda weak but they are doing a much better job than the rest of the USA.
đeri662
đeri662 4 months ago
What about in the winter, when solar production goes down multiple times? You would need to have multiple times oversized solar systems.
tomarew
tomarew 5 months ago
Burnie Sanders
mmr Blmbngn
mmr Blmbngn 5 months ago
I see many old guys here and fossil fuel fanboys who lived in a time where they're killing the future of they're children and grandchildren, with so many arguments about renewable energy's underdeveloped technologies short term drawbacks. If only more research and money is put on by your war mongering government then it would be very possible that renewable energy will be efficient and economically viable in a short span of time. No offense grannies but your fossil fuel generation is up, you might as well just rest in peaces.
softminimal1
softminimal1 5 months ago
Burning wood is not green.
đeri662
đeri662 4 months ago
Why not? It is carbon neutral and if you have the correct filters attached to clean flue gas, you basically don't have any PM emissions.
Jeffrey Black
Jeffrey Black 5 months ago
Also, biomass is effectively just indirect solar. Has anyone done the math on how much power you would get if you just wiped out the forest and put a solar power plant there instead?
Jeffrey Black
Jeffrey Black 5 months ago
Power doesn't magically scale like that. You can't have every block be its own grid. Basically the only power you can do that with is solar. For hydro you would need each block to have a waterfall. For wind you have the downwind blocks get less and less power until they have basically none. For biomass each one needs its own forest. So solar would be the only option for that. If you ignore the fact that Chicago isn't on the equator, then the sunlight reaching the surface has an flux of roughly 1 kW /m^2. However, not all of that is usable with solar power. A large portion is too low in energy, and some is too high in energy to be used efficiently. If you be generous and say the solar cell gets 20% of the power, that is down to 200 W/m^2. If you consider the height of their buildings and how many people live/work in them, that is nowhere near enough; especially when you remember that it isn't always mid-day and they aren't on the equator, meaning over the course of a day that power will vary from significantly less than 200 W/m^2 all the way down to 0. For any large city the only solution for renewable energy is to have large centralised systems which distribute power to large areas.
Jeffrey Black
Jeffrey Black 5 months ago
Some more math: From some sources, Chicago government buildings used 1.8 billion kWhr of electricity in 2016, which accounted for roughly 8% of electricity in Chicago. Meaning Chicago as a whole used 22.5 billion kWhr. Given that there are 8784 hours in a year, that works out to be a rate of roughly 2.5 million kW. So with an area of roughly 600 km^2, a flux of 200 W/m^2 would give a total power output of 120 million kW. However, that would only be if it was always midday at the equator on the equinox (or midday on the tropic at summer). Averaging over a day at the equator on the equinox, you end up with a demand of 60 GW hr. You have a supply of ~900 GWhr, or 15 times as much. However that reduces significantly when you move away from the equator, and consider summer and winter. So at a peak it would generate less than that. That would make it quite difficult to actually meet the power requirements, and ignores that if you did cover the city like that, you no longer have any light to grow any plants or provide light for walking around during the day and need to replace that. That also completely ignores the fuel used to run cars and the like.
Santtu12
Santtu12 5 months ago
Burlington's mayor sounds a bit like Ben Shapiro.
Bora STAN
Bora STAN 5 months ago
Absolutely amazing system! Maybe dropping woods and go for rooftop PV system with battery should be the next step. 👍
đeri662
đeri662 4 months ago
+Bora STAN It really isn't exaggerated, I looked at the actual numbers of solar production for my country (Slovenia) and it's 4 times lower in the winter. Wood burning is actually clean if you have the correct filters. It is carbon neutral and with almost no harmfull emissions (PM is the worst thing in flue gas from biomass burning but this can be managed quite easily). The difference from coal is that coal isn't carbon neutral or renewable and there are other harmfull emissions like SO2 or NOx which are harder to filter out. In my opinion the best solution is this: Hydroelectricity where it's possible, geothermal where it's cost effective, biomass where there is an increment of forest, a little bit of wind and solar, nuclear to fill the gap between production and consumption. Just like you would need energy storage to go off grid, the same problem is in the power grid, consumption and production must be equal every second. The good thing is that we can regulate output power from classical power plants like coal, gas, hydro or nuclear and mitigate this problem without energy storage. When there is more and more solar&wind implementation and classical power plants closures, the regulating power need is higher and higher but the actual regulating power that can be provided is lower and lower. That's where energy storage comes into the picture but this would be very expensive to do on a power grid scale.
Bora STAN
Bora STAN 4 months ago
+đeri662 you are right about the cost. Winter PV efficiency part is kind of exaggerated. Anyway, the concept is being clean, and burning wood doesn't look clean to me. If you can deal with the exhaust, why don't go with coal, right? And I'm guessing that the exhaust processing costs some as well. However, I agree with you on one matter: solar may not be the best solution, there must be other clean solutions can be considered such as wind, geothermal and etc. Storage has to be considered if a system wanna go 100% off-grid. Only my personal idea :)
đeri662
đeri662 4 months ago
+Bora STAN Any solar panel that has over 25 % efficiency is very expensive (even 20 % is quite expensive). In either case you have to oversize solar panels production for the winter. Solar production in the winter can be 5 times lower than in the summer. What to do with 400 % overproduction in the summer then? What about when there is let's say a week or two of cloudy weather (production from solar panels can be only around 10-15 % then)? A system containing only solar panels would need a lot of energy storage and massively oversized solar production to have enough electricity 365/24/7. Nobody would pay the money needed to do that. There are smarter ways to have clean electricity, which is also cheap and doesn't have to be oversized a lot.
Bora STAN
Bora STAN 4 months ago
+đeri662 high eff pv might be enough. Of course, need to do the math.
đeri662
đeri662 4 months ago
What about in the winter? Start up biomass power plants again?
Matthew Holevinski
Matthew Holevinski 5 months ago
So... You could put in 1 itty bitty teeny tiny nuclear reactor, power the whole city for a zillion years, and not have to mass produce any windmills, toxic solar panels, collect transport and burn stuff and all of your power would come from essentially rock also no fish elevation required. well done
Kni
Kni 5 months ago
Nuclear is the future. We just need to use more of the same fuel for longer.
SirChickon
SirChickon 5 months ago
Hey Murica, it seems not everything is going down over in your country!
Rebekah Legion SundayGirlJournals
Kind of completely defeats the object by chopping down almost an entire 660,000 Trees every year to fuel the energy don't You think? Chopping down trees to fuel a town doesn't equal green does it? Why not completely replace the Bio mass with solar or hydro & Wind. Also, it can be done because there's already thousands of Earth Ship Towns, Tiny House Communities & Underground, Earth bag, dome Home & other sustainable communities who are relying entirely on Solar, Wind & Hydro energy as well as independently using small wood stoves with sustainable wood and/or propane. If People used propane as well as electricity to evenly distribute what They're using, their usage would be a lot more energy efficient. The power plant are telling them that They can't go entirely hydro or wind or solar despite the fact entire communities already are doing it & have been for decades & I think the key here is that the power plant still need to make money & want People to stay on grid. We can all live off grid. We don't have to use the main grid.
Tyler Whieler
Tyler Whieler 5 months ago
if solar panels were transparant..... coudn't u just stack them ?
Sonya Davidson
Sonya Davidson 5 months ago
a technology limited to sun 8 hours running 24 not possible without storage. 66% short
LCDR Joe Byers - USN 1529
Excellent. Implementing Project Hope "Joe Dome" in Guatemala City, Guatemala a "Off-grid" Smart City powered by 100% renewable energy, Anaerobic Biomass, Wind Turbines, Solar Farm. This is a CO-op project with University del ISTMO and the Government of Guatemala. Concept Design Video: ruvid.net/video/video-5zkKE4EXNlY.html r/ Joe Byers President Human Relief Organization International www.humanreliefusa.org Email: byerslcdrjoe@@gmail.com
Pașca Alexandru
Pașca Alexandru 5 months ago
I beg to differ that ”new” trees absorb more carbon than old trees. Really *differ* . Let me explain: A young tree has a small crown and few leaves/needles. Leaves/needles retain a lot of the yearly carbon. Fruits, cones and seeds make another big chunk of the absorbed carbon. The wood itself, being the trunk and branches get a few millimeters of thickness yearly. That represents less than 50% of the carbon absorbed. An older three, say 200-500 years old has a huge crown, the grows massive branches and bears * a lot more leaves and fruits/seeds * And whilst a tree can live for 700 to 1200 years, with some exceptions being several millennia old, calling a forest _mature_ at around 100 years is like calling a 4 year old child mature and ready to join the army (and die in war in the next 10 months). You don't see trees that old so often just because they are cut millennia before they'd be called old.
Tom Barron
Tom Barron 5 months ago
Obviously not enough wood to power an entire state but as the level of wind and solar increases (facilitated by local storage) biomass energy can be exported helping to offset CO2 emmissions in other states and providing an income for the operator.
GeoFry3
GeoFry3 5 months ago
Biomass is a great baseline solution for what to do with something that normally get's thrown away.
Atom
Atom 5 months ago
Micro grid and EC programs in city are really good btw
Atom
Atom 5 months ago
Don't call your self 100% renewable city
Atom
Atom 5 months ago
No, hell no, you r not doing this Environmentally sensitive way, You lier chief of electricity..
Keaggan
Keaggan 5 months ago
I just find it hilarious that every home in Murika isn't required to have solar panels.
Spiritual Humanist
Spiritual Humanist 5 months ago
Anaerobic digesters are the answer .Food waste ,manure, sewage almost all organic waste can be use for methane (electricity) production.
Justin Noker
Justin Noker 5 months ago
also, if they have times of low energy usage and they're selling off energy, why don't they just get one of those Giant tesla batteries to store the excess and release power back at peak times?
Justin Noker
Justin Noker 5 months ago
one thing for any hard right republicans watching this, this is what total energy independence looks like.
stpe2005
stpe2005 5 months ago
Can a city run on 100% renewable energy... Seriously you had to ask... Just look north of the boarder, at the province of Québec, we produce 100% of our energy with renewable energy, 8 millions people live from hydroelectricity. We produce so much that we are selling a major part of our surplus to the USA. So yes, a city can be powered with renewable energy.
Nicola Testla
Nicola Testla 6 months ago
Costa Rica for reference
James Esteron
James Esteron 6 months ago
*THAT'S A LOTTA WOODCHIPS*
Endrank luvs da 4 loko
So all the cars and industrial trucks run on electric instead of gas and diesel?
forrest lawrence
forrest lawrence 6 months ago
yes
rgaud8
rgaud8 6 months ago
Lot's of naysayers here. This model can't be used in every place. The takeaway is use the resources around you the best way you can. Do you have access to hydro, wind, solar or biomass? Use them. To me it makes sense to create these more micro grids because one malfunction want take down the whole system. I personally think we should be looking into next generation nuclear reactors. Look up Bill Gates' TED talk on this, seems rather common sense to me.
Beerenmüsli
Beerenmüsli 6 months ago
Awesome Video!!!!
Sompn Brurl
Sompn Brurl 6 months ago
About 1500 trees a day is called green? damn. we are overpopulating. maximum 1 child per woman for 200 years on whole globe should be just fine.
Hyber qb
Hyber qb 6 months ago
Jesus Christ but I haddnt seen anyone there heard celulosis dust causes cancer in that bussines! Like f-ing masks! Good stuff only if for show stop making self there fucking bollocks! Stop giving me fucking creeps and wear fucking mask at stages for Jeasus Christ. God may have mercy.
Tyler Dillon
Tyler Dillon 6 months ago
this whole BIOMASS thing is not good however because after a while you take nutrients out of the air unless they are putting manure back into the soil its not sustainable
Lumnuon
Lumnuon 6 months ago
This is colossaly stupid for two reasons: 1. Energy prices in Vermont are pretty high because of the pseudo-renewable energy. 2. Burning wood chips creates MORE emissions than burning Natural gas, gasoline or even crude oil. It´s "renewable" in the sense that you can grow the fuel but it´s worse for the environment. 3. The wood requires cutting down forests/plantations, which in turn take up space that would be available to wild plants and animals. Yet another stupid attempt to virtue signal to the world how "green" their solution is, while in reality, it does more harm to nature than using good old oil.
Cynthia Cantrell
Cynthia Cantrell 4 months ago
1: That wood was being cut down anyway to make wood products. The chips are what's left over after they got all the useful building materials out of the trees (lumber, plywood etc.). No one chops down whole trees just to burn them for power. That would be colossally stupid. 2: You apparently missed the part where the guys were standing on the roof of the power plant, looking up at the smokestack, and noting that it appeared that there was nothing coming out of it. The ash they retain from their electrostatic precipitators is used for soil conditioner and road beds. 3: You apparently also missed the part where they mention that they don't clear-cut the forests, and they replant, and have already gotten second generation growth out of the same forest areas. Many of the animals in the forest have 4 (or more) legs or 2 wings, and can move from areas that have been cut to nearby areas that haven't. That's one of the perks of not clear-cutting the forest.
Michael Cross
Michael Cross 6 months ago
Doing nothing is bad. Doing the wrong thing is almost as bad. Not knowing that you are doing the wrong thing is stupid.
N F
N F 6 months ago
Bernie 2020
Shaun van Niekerk
Shaun van Niekerk 6 months ago
love everything, just the trees is a no.
ben burton
ben burton 6 months ago
Bio mass is a con
Luis M
Luis M 6 months ago
Im not entirely sold on this, it cant be scalable and its still polluting despite the whole planting newer trees absorb more co2 thing.
ytfp
ytfp 6 months ago
Its not renewable energy if you are burning wood chips at a higher rate at which they can grow. The term renewable energy in this instance is being adulterated to fit the narrative.
Aman Khan
Aman Khan 6 months ago
New trees will be observing more carbon-Americans 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Vipul
Vipul 6 months ago
Nobody asked that what is their ratio of Cutting Trees Vs Planting Trees by them. Also, the forest contains diversified trees; not only of one kind. So what kind of trees are they planting or planting just one kind of tree?
M1kis Stunt
M1kis Stunt 6 months ago
This is awesome
Władca Wymiaru
Władca Wymiaru 6 months ago
Can country run on "clean energy" : ruvid.net/video/video-5g8DD01B89g.html the answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
hbarudi
hbarudi 6 months ago
A step in the right direction toward alternative energy, but we are still a long way from reaching true 100% alternative energy. There are still the gas powered cars and other things that require fossil fuels, so while the grid has become mostly alternative energy powered, there is still the other aspects such as transportation which in that city are doing better than most.
Surya Kant
Surya Kant 6 months ago
Its worse than burning coal
Risa Moore
Risa Moore 6 months ago
yes it is
James Goldsmith
James Goldsmith 6 months ago
So you cut down 600,000 trees a year?!
ahmedshinwari
ahmedshinwari 6 months ago
Ok...when you say to how you going to address CO2 emission "new tree are going to absorb CO2" then you don't deserve the discussion of 'Renewal Clean Energy'.
ferkemall
ferkemall 6 months ago
OK the greens have been banging on about green power and climate change for years and you have Acres of solar panels but what happens to the solar panels when they get hit by one of those violent climate change storms the greens are always on about ? when you get a hail storm and the ice is coming down as big as golf balls that entire solar aray is going to be fked , And what happens to all of the damaged solar panels ? you cant recycle them your going to have to landfill them and they are not going to bio degrade being sealed units , Looking around the adds you can people trying to sell off damaged solar panels and as the climate gets worse as they keep telling us there are going to be thousands more damaged solar panels ! /UK
Next videos
SWITCH Energy Project Movie
1:38:10
Guess Who Called Wendy
4:04