Renewable Energy is a Scam - Lake Harding Association

Renewable Energy is a Scam

Renewable Energy is a Scam

By Micah Moen 100 Comments August 14, 2019


This is Hornsea Project One, a wind farm currently
under construction off the coast of Yorkshire. When it is completed in 2020 it will be the
largest wind farm in the world. It will power 1 million homes. But this project will collectively cost consumers
in the UK an additional £4.2 billion on their energy bills. That’s fine, I guess if it’s going to
save the planet. But is it, really? It turns out that renewable energy isn’t
as rosy as we have all been sold. 97% of scientists believe that climate change
is real and it’s an issue we need to face today. It’s estimated that the effects of climate
change will kill at least 150 million people this century. All of these premature deaths could be avoided
if the average global temperature could be reduced by just 1.5 degrees. Professional hippies spend their lives doing
two things, dying their hair and getting angry at governments for their apparent lack of
action on climate change. There are a very small number of countries,
however, that have heard the message loud and clear and are leading the way on fixing
the planet’s thermostat by investing billions into Renewable Energy. The most prominent is Germany. Today between 40 to 50 percent of Germany’s
energy comes from renewables such as wind, solar and hydro. Germany is making an exemplary move in the
right direction, aren’t they? Well, let’s take a closer look at Germany’s
most popular renewable choice, wind power. Wind turbines are fantastic for reducing CO2
emissions, we all know that. Building wind turbines, on the other hand,
does actually produce a huge amount of CO2, to smelt and manufacture the humongous steel
bodies and aluminium blades. But once it’s up and running a wind turbine
pays off its CO2 debt within 5 months, so it’s not really an issue. No, the issue is that a low carbon footprint
is just about the only benefit of Wind Turbines. They kill endangered species of birds quicker
than the Duke of Wellington on New Year’s Day. Hundreds of thousands of birds are killed
by wind turbines every year and thousands of those are rare species of large birds like
eagles. Over a million bats are also killed each year
by wind turbine blades. And solar has its own unique issues, mainly
toxic waste. Well-made solar panels have a lifespan of
20 to 25 years. But with their huge and growing popularity
cheaply made Chinese solar panels are flooding global markets. These can break down in as little as five
years. And many of them contain highly toxic chemicals
that are harmful to human health and can cause cancer such as lead, cadmium and chromium,
unlike nuclear waste the toxicity of these elements never decays. All solar panels can break and do with some
degree of regularity; when the glass is smashed, toxic chemicals can leach into the soil and
thus public water supplies. Also we have no plan to dispose of them safely,
the vast majority of solar panels will be shipped off to countries that have no safe
way of dealing with their toxicity, countries where we already send millions of tonnes of
our tech waste to such as Africa and other developing regions. These are teething issues that will hopefully
be fixed by better-decommissioning protocols and pipelines and improved solar technology. Both solar and wind, however, have an inescapable
issue that no amount of technology can fix: they only produce energy when the wind blows
or the sun shines. In some locations thats as little as 10% of
the time. Even the most efficient wind and solar farms
only work optimally 30% of the time. Although to be clear most solar and wind farms
produce some amount of energy around 75% of the time, even if just a little. This means we will always need a more consistent
energy source, such as fossil or nuclear to cover renewable’s downtimes. Perhaps in the future battery technology will
reach a point where it becomes feasible to store copious amounts of excess power from
renewable sources and the grid can be fed off those whilst the wind isn’t blowing
and the sun isn’t shining. But currently, the technology isn’t even
close, as it stands, no battery array in the world can hold even a fraction of the power
needed to sustain a city for more than a few minutes. The current largest, built by Tesla in Australia,
is a 100-megawatt array that can sustain 30,000 homes for an hour. In fact without having huge and expensive
battery arrays dotted around every country, which would be an eyesore, solar and wind
have seemingly insurmountable redundancy issues. Fossil and Nuclear power plants both work
within a similar framework, the fuel produces heat which is used to create steam which turns
a large turbine, which turns a generator which creates electricity. When I say large turbine I mean stupidly large
– these goliaths usually weigh in at over 100 tonnes of solid steel. Its immense mass has some benefits. Primarily, redundancy. Nuclear power plants produce energy 24/7,
365 days of the year, they are only shut down once every two years to refuel. But what if it has to shut down in an emergency,
what if it fails and stops producing steam to turn the turbine. Actually, what if every single fossil fuel
and nuclear power plant in the country all shut down at the same time. The power would go out, right? Well not quite. You see, because of the immense inertial mass
of a spinning turbine, there is enough centrifugal force to maintain its rotation and continue
to generate power as normal, for a couple of minutes without any steam input. This gives the national grid a small but crucial
time to restart the power plant and get it back online. Because of this crucial redundancy window,
unplanned power outages due to hiccups at power plants are extremely rare, most power
cuts happen due to weather affecting other parts of the infrastructure such as overhead
cables. Wind turbines don’t have a large turbine
to rely on if it fails, it stops producing power instantaneously, so does a solar farm. Although there is currently hype surrounding
new hybrid wind turbines that have a backup battery in the base of the tower which will
help overcome this issue. But then there’s an issue of land usage
and the environment. To build these huge arrays of wind turbines
and solar panels an area of over 5,000 square metres usually has to be cleared of all vegetation
and wildlife. This is disastrous for the ecosystem, the
local environment and the various species that may call it home. To power a country such as the United Kingdom
using exclusively wind and solar power it is estimated that up to 25% of the country’s
land surface would need to be cleared and transformed into wind or solar farms. Wind farms only return 2.5 Watts per square
metre. Compare that to nuclear which produces 1,000
Watts per square metre and it’s clear how inefficient renewables are when it comes to
land usage. We could mitigate some of this disastrous
loss of nature by building all these wind farms offshore, although we still don’t
fully understand the long term effects of offshore wind farms on marine species. But this isn’t the plan. The UK currently has 271 wind farms planned
over the next decade, about half of them are currently under construction. But only 25 of these will be offshore, although
the offshore arrays do tend to be far larger than their land counterparts. There’s an important philosophical question
to be answered here – by destroying huge swathes of nature to build renewables aren’t we
destroying the very natural world the renewables are intended to save? But, what about the cost of human life caused
by direct accidents, such as reactor meltdowns? Surely this is one area in which renewables
can win hands down. Well, the figures may shock you, as they shocked
me. The most dangerous are, as to be expected,
the fossil fuels. Coal tops the figures with 100,000 deaths
per Petawatt Hour, then oil at 36,000, then biomass with 24,000 deaths, natural gas at
4,000, and that’s not factoring in the millions of deaths each year as a result of the air
pollution from all these sources. But it’s the carbon-neutral energy sources
that have the most interesting figures. Hydro 1,400 (also, hydro secretly produces
quite a large amount of CO2), solar 440 deaths and wind 150 (although there are no completely
reliable data sources for wind turbine deaths, more data is needed here). It’s what’s at the very bottom of the
list, however, that may surprise you. Nuclear is just 90 deaths per Petawatt Hour,
and that includes Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island. Nuclear energy has a really bad public image. It’s no surprise, with its association with
nuclear warheads and Chernobyl. But you can’t ignore statistics and it is
statistically the safest form of reliable power production we have today. Nuclear energy and negative press go together
like Greenpeace and propaganda, and so many countries have been decommissioning nuclear
reactors in favour of renewable sources, but in an ironic twist of fate, nuclear may just
be the energy source that could save our planet. Nuclear fission is big and scary, but it has
so many benefits that cannot simply be ignored. Nuclear power plants produce zero carbon emissions. Their only byproduct is nuclear waste, but
unlike byproducts of all other forms of energy production, this is 100% contained and doesn’t
leak out into the environment, nuclear waste can also be recycled and reused in reactors
multiple times. It’s important to note however that the
Uranium mining and enrichment processes do use fossil fuels and this does produce CO2. But when we average it out over a power plant’s
life cycle a single nuclear reactor and all its related industries produce a median of
65g of CO2 per kWh – that’s roughly the same amount of CO2 produced by wind farms
over their life cycle, taking their manufacturing and regular maintenance into consideration
too. But nuclear’s carbon footprint could be
even lower than wind. Allow me to expand. Since 1987, Russia and the US have been mutually
decommissioning their nuclear weapons, even if recent political hiccups have put a spanner
in this process, every year old nuclear warheads are still regularly retired and decommissioned. This creates a steady influx of already highly-enriched
Uranium fuel that can be used by nuclear power plants to create energy, completely bypassing
uranium mining and enrichment and thus bypassing CO2 emissions. Sceptics believe that nuclear power plants
lead to nuclear weapon proliferation, but in fact, it’s the complete opposite – the
absolute best way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world is by building
more nuclear reactors. In 2013, 19% of the world’s nuclear energy
needs were fueled by Uranium 235 from decommissioned nuclear warheads. Take a look at two real-life countries that
have taken completely opposite paths. Germany has invested heavily into renewables
and decommissioned 17 of their nuclear reactors and Merkel’s government pledged to remove
all of their nuclear reactors by 2022. Today only 6% of Germany’s power comes from
nuclear. At the opposite end of the scale, France has
invested heavily in nuclear as its primary source of power – they currently have 58 active
reactors and more than 80% of France’s energy needs are met by nuclear, by far the highest
per capita in the world. The result? Germany’s CO2 emissions per capita are more
than double that of France. And French households enjoy a much lower energy
cost, they pay only 0.1799 EUR per kWh, Germans pay almost double that for their electricity,
0.3 EUR per kWh, the second-highest in Europe. Notably, Germany’s energy costs have increased
by 50% since starting their big push towards renewables. I’m not trying to disparage renewables,
I think they have an important part to play in saving the planet, but I believe it should
be a far smaller part than what we are currently aiming for. If for no other reason than to not see our
world’s beautiful landscape littered with gigantic, obnoxious windmills, not if there
is no overwhelming benefit over the alternative. Humanity’s cleanest, cheapest form of energy
has been right in front of us since the 40s. And until nuclear fusion comes along, we should
be investing more in nuclear fission to reduce greenhouse gasses without needing to destroy
thousands of square miles of our beautiful planet to litter it with bird blenders. But what if nuclear energy can be improved
even more. What if it could produce little to no waste
and be completely safe and meltdown proof? Well, maybe it can. In 1950 Indian Physicist Homi Bhabha postulated
that perhaps another fuel from the typical Uranium 235 and Plutonium 239 could be used
for nuclear fission, Thorium. Thorium is a naturally-occurring radioactive
metal that is four times as abundant on Earth as Uranium. After World War II a reactor design that used
Thorium as its fuel, a Molten Salt Reactor was created by the US government and the first
experimental reactor of its kind was built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and it successfully
generated electricity between 1965 and 1969. But the US government decided the future of
nuclear energy was in Uranium not Thorium and so pretty much every reactor in the world
since the 60s has used Uranium fuel. There were many reasons for Uranium being
chosen as the de facto fission fuel over Thorium, but one of the most prominent was that Uranium
makes much better bombs. Uranium enrichment plants produce highly enriched
Uranium that can either be used in nuclear warheads or power peoples homes. Thorium on the other hand can be used to make
nuclear weapons but it’s a lot more difficult and inefficient. But that’s not the only benefit of Thorium-based
power over Uranium. Thorium reactors produce much less nuclear
waste. One chinese scientist claims that there will
be a thousand times less nuclear waste from Thorium reactors. Also, since natural Thorium can be used as
fuel it does not need to be enriched. And it gets better, another Thorium reactor
design known as Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor or LFTR has a unique design that its proponents
claim is meltdown-proof. The most common cause of reactor meltdowns
in current Uranium plants is excessively high and runaway temperatures, usually due to power
failures which can lead to insufficient cooling. But LFTRs contains a plug at the bottom of
the reactor that is designed to melt if the temperature gets too high, this causes all
the fuel to drain into an underground safe-storage tank which in theory should completely avert
a catastrophic meltdown. It all seems too good to believe. Science writer Richard Martin writes: ‘Thorium
could provide a clean and effectively limitless source of power while allaying all public
concern—weapons proliferation, radioactive pollution, toxic waste, and fuel that is both
costly and complicated to process’ But like everything in life, Thorium isn’t short
of its detractors. There are some who argue that because Thorium
is still highly experimental and it hasn’t been operational on a large scale like Uranium
reactors, it can’t yet be trusted and it may not be all it’s made out to be. But I guess the only way we can find out for
certain whether Thorium is the golden goose of clean energy is by putting it into use,
producing energy for consumers. And that’s exactly what India is doing right
now. India has one of the largest natural supplies
of Thorium and they have pledged to meet 30% of their energy demands with Thorium reactors
by 2050. Britain, France, Canada, America, China and
a few others are currently looking into Thorium as a potential energy source but India is
currently the only country that has a well thought out, government approved and funded
plan to ramp up Thorium-based energy production. India plans to have over 60 functional Thorium
reactors by 2025. And since India is the world’s third largest
polluter it seems like a necessary step that could help preserve the planet for a little
while longer. But it’s going to require action from more
than just one country to save it. To be completely honest, the world needs to
look to China to stop burning dinosaurs for fun. Just under 30% of the world’s carbon emissions
come from China. It’s not surprising since a staggering 55%
of power production in China is coal based. A tiny 4% of China’s power comes from Nuclear,
as of 2018. I’m not saying we should abandon all forms
of energy except nuclear, wind and solar renewables have a huge and beneficial part to play in
saving the planet. But all nations should be looking to eradicating
coal-based energy production, it’s horrendously inefficient, you have to burn a lot of coal
and release a ton of CO2 for a pathetic amount of energy, it kills millions of people each
year from pollution and it’s quickly killing the planet too. But perhaps as most developed nations are
looking to replace coal power, nuclear shouldn’t simply be swept aside for renewables. Renewables may be the fashionable and popular
option, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the better option. Thanks for watching.

100 Comments found

User

Rat Velvet

Oh dear, rambling, incoherent and lacking sources

Reply
User

Fred Bloggs

i never believed in wind farms

Reply
User

Wonder Honky

This look into this issue is fairly good…

That said though, it seems a little bit skewed to a bit of conformation. Being that a large part of the push for tapping into renewable sources is dependent on the ongoing development of up, and coming solutions. To include "batteries", and measures of efficiency. Granted long standing sources of power generation have a lot of these bugs ironed out, but for the most part, renewable sources, on the scales being attempted today, have never been attempted before.

It's lead to a host of new, and largely unconsidered solutions to issues, as they arise. As you stated in the video, with respect to the large mass of steam turbines allowing for an interim of steam loss, and power failure. So too can any energy source be loaded with such a fail-safe, or "battery". Recently this has been developed in many iterations, from large weights being carried up an incline, to hydro-electric backups being pumped into large uphill reservoirs, all to serve as essentially a non-degrading, long term storage, high capacity, battery.

Other than that, I only found the idea that large swaths of land being clear cut, and utilized, to make way for wind extraction to be just a little misleading. In truth, only a small section of land is being "used", and most of that land is left perfectly available to farm, or develop as a rural area, in just about any way, other than as a commercial city with skyscrapers. Also, I'm not currently aware of any wind farming development that's clear cutting any natural forests to make way for the turbines themselves. In so far as I'm aware, this is all taking place on pre-existing clearings of farmland, and grasslands, which are still almost entirely available to farm. I certainly wouldn't approve of a project else wise, myself, but I don't see that's a problem with the medium, so much as a problem with implementation, either… Obviously, there are bad ways to implement any power production method.

Reply
User

I don't deserve subs

Don't fear, go nuclear

Reply
User

Dalia crave

Do i really need to go through this video and talk about how many things he claims and doesn't understand? "because of it's huge amount of CENTRIFUGAL FORCE". Someone qualified should make this type of video. Not some wikipedia researcher.

Reply
User

Kitsujitsu

Well I learned something today.

Reply
User

Adanna Wint

3:30 "countries…. such as Africa" *facepalm*

Reply
User

preston smith

Its funny really , but not if you think about it to much , i heard this exact spiel 4 days ago by an americun spreckin english . Having heard it now almost verbatim by an englishmun sprekin shite im guessing theres some pretty big backing with deep pockets behind this . As a former proponent and verbose advocate of RENEWABLE ENERGY, ( spoken in a voice expressing contempt for the subject) i want in ! I could do the script in a southern drawl to put all them hippies in Austin on notice that theres a better way . I would happily read it and other similar scripts for scale and maybe a couple of those strontium 90 fuel cells for my steam powered hummer

Reply
User

Draggy654

Its obvious that nuclear fusion is the future of energy not wind or hydro solar can be the future but sufficient advancements are needed to make it viable

Reply
User

Harmly Mostless

You are good at research – look up the use of hydroelectric power to pump water up a hill during the day when there is excess energy production then uses the power of the raised water to power the hydroelectric plant during the night. There is at lest one place that put a system together that did that a long time ago. It was an energy storage system that did not depend on the advanced chemistry of batteries. Hydroelectric power generation plants last a great many decades, 50 years is not uncommon, and when something breaks and needs to be replaced, there are no dangerous chemicals other than the lubricant used with any large machine to properly dispose. OK, You will make the point that hydroelectric power is not available everywhere and that is true. But so what? A solution does not need to be available everywhere to be useful in reducing carbon emissions.

Reply
User

The Sounding of the Horn

The fear of nuclear power is primal. Having nuclear power is having nuclear bombs. They go hand in hand just as you said. No country develops thorium reactors because they are only good for making energy not bombs.

Make thorium reactors and we are good all the way around. It's been this way ever since nuclear power has been around.

Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil. ~Ecclesiastes 8:11

The problem has never been that we can't find the solution or that there is no solution. The problem has always been sin. Give up your fear of man and being controlled by man and trust in God. Give up your greed and be content. This will solve not just the problems of electricity but all the problems in the world.

But that's just too simple for you isn't it? This is why it was said,

If you are not firm in faith then you will not be firm at all. ~Isaiah 7:9

Reply
User

Christopher Catron

SO, you would rather continue to burn crap and kill people rather than birds and bats…..please be part of the 150 million that we loose to global warming

Reply
User

Joh Miller

wait a minute, you can't hit a bat with one of those wind farm propellers. Study bats.

Reply
User

Creek Mountain Riders

Solar panels when they reach “expiration date” the production only drops in power by 20-30% we don’t know how long they last because of politicians

Reply
User

Harmly Mostless

The problem with birds flying into the blades of a windmill while they do not fly into trees is the appearance of the space. Trees look solid. Birds know enough to not try to fly through something sold. But the danger zone of a windmill appears to be almost completely empty. There is no other equivalent natural danger that would have taught the birds to not fly into the danger zone around the windmill. They fly through what appears to them to be empty space at safe distance from the ground. Some birds die because they do recognize the danger of the windmill.

Which is more important, in the short term save the life of the birds that fly into windmill blades, but risk having most everything dying in the long term because of uncontrollable thermal runaway of climate change? Or to sacrifice some birds to slow or stop the never ending creep towards unstoppable thermal runaway by continuing to use wind farms until something better becomes affordable? Are we willing to pay more for electricity to save the birds and not sacrifice our own future? Wind farms may not be 100% of the solution. But it is part of it. If people really wanted it, bird cages could be built over windmills to keep the birds out. It is all about money and priories.

The problems with the poisons released into the environment when a solar panel is broken can be controlled by mandating the use of only non-toxic materials. The solar panels do not need to be made with toxic chemicals. They are because it is cheap and the manufacturer does not need to pay for the cost of trying to clean up the environment poisoned by their toxic products. They ignore the total life-cycle costs of their product by shifting the cleanup cost to later generations. Look at all of the costs involved and it is cheaper to produce a non-toxic solar panel, but that would raise the cost of electricity and we all want cheap electricity and do not give a damn about the costs we are shoving onto future generations. We don't mind peeing into our own coffee cup as long as someone else must drink the coffee when it becomes too nasty.

The same was done with nuclear power. It appeared to be a cheap source because the mind-numbing costs of decommissioning a power plant and the long term storage of the poison they produce was being pushed onto future generations with no thought. How do we build a storage facility that will last for 10,000 to 20,000 years so that it can safely contain the toxic waste until they are reasonably non-toxic? We have no idea how to build such a facility. And we can not find any state to host such a facility. But that is a problem solvable with dollars.

Offer a state enough money and they will host a storage facility. How much will it cost to change the minds of a state's officials? $100 million? $500 million? $2 Billion? At some price, the refusal to host such a storage facility with disappear. At a high enough offer and states will be climbing over each other to have a storage facility built in their state.

We don't need to be paying trillions of dollars each year on undeclared wars with other countries started by our meddling. But we need the war to constantly consume the expensive weapon systems sold to the government. Some of the money could be redirected to solving the radioactive waste storage problem. What we need to do is convince our weapon system manufacturers to enter the business of building unfailing nuclear storage systems. Convince them that the cheap dollars are there, and this country's priorities will suddenly change.

The cost of any electricity generating system must consider the total life-cycle costs and if the cost of electricity is not also covering the total life-cycle costs of that plant, we need to be very clear that we are getting cheap electricity today because we are forcing people in the future to pay to clean up the environment of the poisons generated by the power source.

We went through this before. The air use to be very polluted by coal-fired power plants until it was decided that we need to pay the cost of cleaning up air pollution when it is the least expensive; eliminating the pollution at the source.

We did the same with water pollution. My grandmother use to spend a week each summer living in a tiny cabin near the shore of a lake in our state. One year she invited my sister, brother and me to come with her. My siblings and I all swam in the lake and all of us got sick. I think that was the last year my grandmother went to the lake. Years later the lake caught fire. The lake no longer catches fire. Fish again live in the lake. It is safe to swim in the lake. We forced companies to take care of the pollution they produce as they produced it instead of pushing the cost onto future generations.

Coal-powered power plants are pushing us to the point where thermal runaway of the environment can not be reversed. Hydroelectric power is very clean but it impacts the life of some kinds of fish and the fish-lovers are pitching a fit. Wind power is clean but is a hazard to some birds. Some solar panels have a problem with polluting the environment with poisonous chemicals used in cheap solar panels. And nuclear is the most egregious example of pushing the cost of cleanup of the waste onto future generations. What is the best long-term solution other than ignoring the problem until it is much too late and we make it very difficult to live a comfortable life on the surface of this planet? We can continue to ignore the problem and if life become inhospitable on the surface, we can always move underground. What it would be like if it was mandatory to wear an environmental suit to go to the surface? We could all pretend to be astronauts!

Reply
User

Marshall Kinnaird

Coughing "geothermal energy and nuclear power".

Reply
User

Marshall Kinnaird

Fusion cores and fusion cells are the future.

Reply
User

Marshall Kinnaird

I rather have the world be powered by uranium then have a Thermal Nuclear Holocaust.

Reply
User

AnEffinCookie

It was a frequency excursion that caused the most recent large scale blackout in UK. Guess what? It’s coming to the US. I see it everyday, in the little frequency meter hanging from the ceiling of my office. When the sun goes down, so does frequency. Sag the frequency enough at the same times a plant is tripping offline, bye bye YouTube.

Reply
User

Richard H. Smith Jr.

Putz

Reply
User

Cadillac Lover

I've never understood why people congratulate couples who are on their third or fourth kid. Its a fact that a woman who already recycles at her optimum, will still increase her carbon footprint 40 times by just having 2 children.

Women, your combined Uteri reek more havoc to the environment than a thousand Dow chemical corporation accidents combined. If you don't bear a child, you could drive an entire fleet of Hummers(TM) to and from work everyday hanging your ass out the window and farting Styrofoam packing peanuts into the atmosphere and still not cause a fraction of the damage that one child causes to this planet. You want to help mother earth, try condoms.

Reply
User

Samuel Morris

I think machines for renewable energy are great when used at the right locations on earth. I think there must be a lot of windmills and solar farms in most deserts of the world. There should also be safe and environmentally friendly solar panels installed on most houses and residential complexes with the government sharing the costs with the house and building owners. I think renewable energy can be very effective and very useful when used in the right way and in the right places without clearing forests or vegetation for the sake of installing windmills or solar farms. I think governments have to actively encourage and push for the use of safe solar panels in cities on building rooftops and on every house.

Reply
User

SwartzGunther

Idiot. Quarter a million years nucler waste must be held in tight security, you have no idea what could happen in 250 000 years

Reply
User

Stefan Brand

Store the wind/solar like they did in Australia, done by Tesla and it pays back the cost within just 4 years..! Why are you saying it isn’t even feasible yet, love your videos soo much but this is stupid fossil fuel industry propaganda.. So windfarms at sea are possible bad for the sea but oil rigs don’t get mentioned, this is sooo stupid.

The most stupid thing about nuclear? You can’t insure it so it has to be state funded/insured.. Second takes too long before building one, three: it’s too expensive!

Fourth: Nuclear can’t be cooled properly during dry seasons

Reply
User

BlazeTornado100 Gaming

How come it feels like hes trying to sell me a used car ?

Reply
User

Stefan Brand

Google australia battery storage by Elon Musk, it pays for itsself in only 4year

Reply
User

Jesualdo Braga

Ma man, you have evolved a lot, haven't seen your videos in a while, you are are getting very sharp!

Reply
User

dumbcreaknuller

so you want nuclear? the last thing we wan't is more nuclear meltdowns. manmande volcanoes is what that is. if we made them bigger and they failed, we would not tell them apart from the natural volcanoes. it would take a few hundred years before a molten down reactor will resurface magma as it created a themal heat well in the earth as is melt itself deeper and deaper into the crust and cause particles to accelerate upward creating a gas pocket that eventually will collapes creating a earthquake, explosion and a volcanic eruption.

Reply
User

Felix Courtney

And this is why climate change is a much bigger problem than basically everyone realises

Reply
User

Marco Diaz

Cool cool but can you please cite your sources in the description or something aye?

Reply
User

Steven Grom

ALL ABOARD THE NUCLEAR TRAIN…… BOOOOOM BOOOOOM

Reply
User

Om Um

this must be the most interesting title i've seen for a video lately

Reply
User

erutyj 76ky88

We found an idiot who thinks renewable energy is all a scam. Clearly he failed his science.

Reply
User

Mohanned Khalid

Africa is not a Country

Reply
User

Om Um

and here i was thinking nobody gave shit about green energy… faith in humanity restored 😀

Reply
User

Top Tunes

If the world starts using Thorium there will be less inclintion for decommisioning weapons to release Uranium for power station fuel – Just a thought.

The problem with nuclear power is that the regulation and safety issues are not transparent to the public. Radiation being detected at and around power plant sites. It needs regulation with independant scientisits heavily involved to reassure the public and automatic rights of access to power plants and to take measurements at any time. Heavy criminal sanctions for plant managers who allow avoidable failings to happen and unavoidable ones to continue. .
The public needs to trust nuclear power. The world wouldn't exist without nuclear power – it's called the Sun.

Humans create only a small percentage of Caron Dioxide and the real greenhouse gas is water vapour anyway.

What about all the poisonous chemicals that are dumped into the environment ? Global warming will happen anyway just like in the past along with global cooling. It goes in cycles like everything else in nature. The planet has survived in the past with Carbon Dioxide three times what it is now – all that happened was that plants grew faster. Nature doesn't care if humans survive or not. The planet wasn't created just for humans to live on. If we all die out tomorrow every thing else on the planet will probably be delighted.

Reply
User

Nathaniel Ford

Now do a video on how CO2 makes our planet green.
400ppm of CO2 is to low. Plants suffer at that level.
Plus talk to an astrophysicist about how CO2 and inferred.
Its water vapour that insulates our planet. But then does insulating the planet not only insulates us from losing heat but also from gaining it. So just averages it out.
Maybe its just down to the simple fact that our orbit is changing.
But the pollution needs to stop, that is killing everything.

Reply
User

Mabjaz Playz

Most facts come from here
https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w

Reply
User

Serafin Torres

so nuclear power is healthy? i'm not going to watch till the end. it just seems a waste of time for me

Reply
User

Christian Farrelly

It's not a philosophical question, it's an ethical one. And it's a hypocritical solution.

Reply
User

Bubble Hubble

3:22 "Countries where we already send millions of tons of our tech waste each year such as Africa" oh yeah Africa, great country ._.

Reply
User

M Fernandes

79% of the energy produced in Brazil comes from renewable sources…. just saying

Reply
User

Chuck O

So the seemingly sympathetic concern for public health and environmental impact from the fossil fuel industry isn't a scam? Which scam promises you an increased likely hood of developing fatal lung disease, cancers from heavy metals and byproducts leaching and being dumped into our nations ground water, reduced bounty from the oceans due to acidification, extinction of species due to habitat loss from a warming climate, loss of farmland due to rising sea levels and subsequent lower crop yields, increased energy bills from longer hotter summers.

Reply
User

Hellvlad

In response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-AYhMoLorI Seriously… Windmills are bad because they kill birds? You lost all credibility here. Guess it's better that we don't use windmills anymore to make flour, bread would be so environment unfriendly!

Reply
User

Pyro

the title is a little misleading.

Reply
User

falco447

Solution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec

Reply
User

lemon jump

the point of this video is forced…the energy mix of the world is to a large extend controlled by someone other then research oriented government. if big companies does not want change, it is not going to happen atleast in near future….and trust me on this big companies have power beyond our imagination…

Reply
User

Equelan2

Don't worry. They are blocking the Sun by spraying chemtrails to atmosphere almost everyday and poisoning us at the same time to depopluate planet. One shot two birds. Btw global warming is a lie. The world supposed to be warmer place than this climate. Before 1812 there wasn't such a thing as winter and snow at all.

Reply
User

Tom Mills

This guy is a joke. A tanker has an oil spill. Has that lead to the cease and desist of transporting oil via tankers, or the complete elimination of nuclear energy or any other incident/accident leading to the discontinuation that particular technology. What a fossil-fuel troll he is.

Reply
User

James Clarkson

It's not the planet that needs saving. Earth will continue doing it's thing way after humans have destroyed themselves. It's ourselves we need to save.

Reply
User

Jens Chance

What about the waterpower from waterfalls?

Reply
User

routemaster 387

nuclear energy is a great way to see who believes in science and those who jump on the environmental bandwagon

Reply
User

Informedia Tech

noooooooooo british accent just make me vomit ……BREXIT GET THE FUCKKK OUT OF MY EUROPEAN SCREEN

Reply
User

Informedia Tech

WHEN YOU FART IT PRODUCE METHAN AND CO2 SO STOP FARTING….

Reply
User

Equelan2

Nuclear power is fake and hoax. This is how: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMqHTbXm3rs

Reply
User

Kacin 12

3:24 "Countries… such as Africa"

???

Reply
User

Isaiah Amos

I know how to save the planet there was a linx thought to be endangered at Chernobyl now nature is taken over Chernobyl

Reply
User

Juzu Juzu

97% of scientists are pussies who say they believe in co2 climate change, because they are bullied into that crap. Even if co2 would cause harm, reducing it is essentially pointless because humans produce only under 5% of it, and trying to cut even 2% would collapse the world and cause famines etc. also it's not cost efficient way to handle climate, but media censors other CO2 management methods because those in power actually just want to use this BS to advance their global plans.

Green movement in the 2000s has caused much higher CO2 usage. Products are being made to last so small time, and in most products the manufacturing is like half the total energy of lifecycle. So it's a pure scam that makes stock owners and corporations rich, and also allows commoners to buy new things over and over and still believe they are doing something to benefit the climate. But the highest cost is the cost to our environment by the huge increase in resource usage, pollution etc.

There are couple of "evidence" groups for co2 climate change, closed source simulations which are as useless as mine "print temp=years*0.02" program, and weak correlations which can be found in everything. For example it seems that there is something horrible in the 1920s because people born in that decade seem to be dying a lot. Or that here in the north, the consumption of ice cream is correlating with the amount of people drowning.

I myself am a physicist, and was climate activist until someone I respected opened my eyes. Then I actually started to research the claims, and it's big pile of steaming shite. If it were true, it could be easily proven at least as a concept by some matlab code which shows the effects of CO2 in atmosphere when all the other variables are removed. How much 0.02% increase is actually able to warm the atmosphere, well, clearly not much or the planet would have been burned in pre jurassic era when there was 1500-3000% higher CO2 levels than what we have produced in the last 300 years.

Reply
User

Survival Tom

Climate change is a hoax

Reply
User

Don Kalzone

Sooo… the storage of nuclear waste over thousand of years is for free… and the problems in finding save storage places are super easy and there are never problems like in Gorleben?
Furthermore don't forget the costs of deconstructing nuclearpowerplants and that they don't have to pay insurences. If shit happens the government has to pay for all the damage.

NuclearPower isn't cheap, its super expensive. And it's official, just look the guaranteed prices for nuclearpower and compare it to the other.
Even solarpower is cheaper than nuclearpower… at least in Germany since 2016

Reply
User

colliecandle

There is NO 'global warming' because we don't live on a f'in 'globe', planet' or any other ludicrous name you believe is reality !

Reply
User

oneuponedown

Talks about radiation and radioactive waste but shows shows bio-hazard stuff.

Reply
User

Niko

Maybe start dumping our nuclear waste into space, like into sun, jupiter or outer solar system?

Reply
User

Chris Jones

Please poorly researched what this really should be is debunking Tesla s plan. How about using the excess energy to either create hydrogen and burn in winter or even use it to make fossil fuels making their use carbon neutral….

Reply
User

Zoltan Glashutter

I wish you were a politician you got all the facts.

Reply
User

Adrian Beer

Heyho and Greetings from Germany.
One Problem in Germany is, that actually a big procentage of energy is produced with fossil fules, like brown coal. Not very climate-friendly…
I totally welcome a fast shift to reneweble energys. There are a lot of options for maxing out the output of especially solar power without building only big and ugly sunpower-farms. We have a lot of roofs and facades which we could use – combined with a powerfull battery there are some homes which actually can be mostly self-sufficient over the sun rich month. We need better and especially cheeper batterys to make this more attraktive.
Concerning the nuclear energy …
I think the decision to get rid of it is right – in the actual form with fuel rod technology. The problem how to storage the nuclear waste isn't solved yet… and it is known for more than 30 years. No one wants to have a final storage near their home, with tons of radioaktive material, especially if there is no safeguarding, that the waste not comes up again, or washing out in the groundwater.
I sympathize with the idea of an fluit salt reactor – if there is an oportunity to reduce the nuclear waste. We should try it out. I never would go back and reactivate old powerplants with fuel rod technology – the waste only provides tensions.
Thank you, as always for your informativ Video, thougty2 :).

Reply
User

RonThePhotoGuy

Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with climate change. Carbon dioxide is the trace gas keeping us all alive. Reducing carbon dioxide is a fool's errand.

Reply
User

Mikosch2

I'd like some sources for these numbers. "Some guy on Youtube said it" makes it hard to proliferate the standpoint – which I would love to do.

Reply
User

Mikosch2

I'd like some sources for these numbers. "Some guy on Youtube said it" makes it hard to proliferate the standpoint – which I would love to do.

Reply
User

RonThePhotoGuy

Spain has a solar farm that heats salt to liquid then uses the heat to generate electricity. It can generate electricity around the clock and can even survive a couple of cloudy days in a row. Of course it is located in a sunny area of the globe.

Reply
User

Ana Lisa Melojete

Colombia is 93% renewables. Most of the energy comes from hydroelectrics and thermals. However, the system is not resilient and always is a pain in the ass to deal with the southern oscillation phenomenon ("El niño"). So, there should be a trade-off between renewables and other sources.

I guess what is going to save the planet is not renewable energy but energy efficiency. Btw, the average load factor for wind farms in U.K. is around 37%.

One final comment, nuclear is also a renewable.

Reply
User

Pentazer

Nuclear, microwave and fusion power is the best solution. Also climate change is unstoppable. Anyone who thinks you can stop it is a blind fool. The Holocene is coming, just as the Pleistocene has passed. You can't stop it, you can only slow it, but it is inevitable. Anyone who thinks humanity is responsible for global warming is way over estimating humanity's minuscule impact on the geological processes of this planet.

Reply
User

Jeroen Speak

I’d like to know where youre getting your facts from. You simply present a picture you’ve convinced yourself of, using ‘facts’ with zero sources. Hard to take this seriously. The planet needs less people like you : Mavericks who just spout off using social media, with zero facts and zero qualifications, the world is FULL of these at the moment, and America is currently ‘ruled’ by one. What we DO need is a more centralised, science-based approach. And less moustaches….

Reply
User

FreeThinker

The 97% claim isn't true.

Reply
User

EW In Plano Texas

"Hey 42 here!"

Reply
User

Proximatus

This guy just actually spent a minute talking about how solar panels contain toxic metals and then skips over the issue of nuclear waste almost entirely, dismissing it as "all contained". Yeah, let's just not talk about the immense time this waste needs to be contained and actively guarded. I don't wanna say this is cherrypicking, but it is.

Reply
User

pp10050

When you came out with "97% of scientists agree that climate change is real" or whatever, I realised that you are just another who has been fooled by the lies. Global Warming is a scam.

Reply
User

Tyler Cheney

I wrote a research paper somewhat about renewable energy, and this whole video just copies and reorganizes various Michael Shellenberger TED talks

Reply
User

Replevideo

One piece of research you obviously missed. A study found that if Germany had spent the same amount of money on nuclear as it has already spent on renewables, it would now produce 110% of its power demand. Renewables only provide 40% and a similar amount still comes from coal. The study also covered California with a similar result., 100% of demandfrom nuclear, and still getting 48% from fossil fuels.

Reply
User

MOE LESTER

Holy shit. I live in Hornsea.

Reply
User

Fuseteam

The title should be
'nuclear is safer and greener than renewables'

Reply
User

Tullochgorum

There are commercial proposals for small, basic thorium salt reactors that could be cheaply mass produced in high-tech shipyards and floated to coastal and riverine sites. They build on proven technology, and while they would be less efficient than the high-tech reactors that India is developing, they should be economically viable and could be on line much more quickly as an interim measure. They would be failsafe and sealed to prevent operator error and returned to base for servicing, making them suitable for developing economies.

They could be developed for millions rather than billions, but they threaten the interests of established energy producers so it's proving difficult to raise funds. Green activists should be demonstrating for higher priority to be given to projects like this, but their anti-nuclear blinkers mean that this is unlikely to happen.

Reply
User

Travis Beagle

Ok so little bit of corrections for your history and working nature of Thorium/MSR because you got a bit wrong (nothing to blame you for since you are a layperson, but needs to still be corrected. First of all, no MSR reactor ever bred Thorium into a usable fuel. Thorium was bred using a different reactor then the Uranium 233 that was made was then put into the reactor. Second of all, Uranium also has the ability to not have long lived waste, the issue is that we do not have commercially available breeder reactors for it, just as we do not have any reactors that can reasonably use Thorium as a fuel and not as an additive for proliferation resistance. Next was your comment on LFTR's freeze plug and drain tanks. This feature was devised and used in MSRE and is an integral component to almost all MSR designs. All MSRs have virtually the same safety benefits, which is why they are really being researched.

Finally, LFTR and Thorium may help solve the issue of fuel later down the line, but as it is right now we have enough partially used Uranium to last us hundreds if not thousands of years and LFTR does not have the ability to put that all to proper use. To do that you need what is called a fast reactor. Those reactors have always been in the form of some sort of liquid metal coolant w/ solid fuel type design, but there are a handful of MSR fast reactors that have been designed and some of them are currently in development.

Reply
User

Jungledude762

So… apparently Africa is a country now? Lol

Reply
User

Stephen Whalen

Can someone start working on the “Mr Fission” from Back to the Future 2 already?

Reply
User

ejuju1

I am digging the stash

Reply
User

Christopher Calder

See The Renewable Energy Disaster at http://renewable.50webs.com/

Reply
User

AllNamesAreTaken

OFF TOPIC: WTF is that under your nose?

ON TOPIC: Heretic! One is not allowed to question the sacred renewable energy industry for they are all wise and knowing. Kneel before your masters. KNEEL!!!

Reply
User

Lord Midmight

Great video not 100% agree but there are many good points and I hope you didn't predict the next war by accident, that for what you are mention it will take place probably on India.

Reply
User

TheMagnificentMeatball

The last time Ive seen a vid of him he was cleanly shaved

Tha fucc happened

Reply
User

Jamal N

It's all about having an energy mix. Nuclear can complement renewable sources.

Reply
User

Mark Juhasz

1) 100.000 years should be considered to judge nuclear energy's safeness. Halfe of Europe was almost killed by Chernobil and "bad" regimes goes again and again.
2) Much less solar and wind is enough to power the UK this video's number are old.
3) House cats kills 100 times more birds then wind turbines.
4) Butteries efficiency improves year by year. and other type of energy storeges improve also.
5) Thorium is an other possibility to generate green energy but who knows which one is better? We have to invest in both.

Reply
User

Aloaf Ov'Bread

Climate change caused by co2 emissions is a manafactured crisis for population reduction.
Keep an open mind and see the historical evidence presented by Tony Hellier. https://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1

Reply
User

Chris Fryer

yeah, right.

Reply
User

Loagun

So… "In the electricity sector, hydroelectricity is the largest renewable energy source in Canada, accounting for approx 60% of Canada's electricity generation." – Natural Resources Canada website.

I see why you didn't spend much time on hydro.

Reply
User

DankMemes Studios

Incorrect , we have huge batteries see: Pumped-storage hydroelectricity.

Reply
User

semih oguzcan

We need degrowth. For this we need to get rid of capitalism and monetary system and adopt alternatives.

Reply
User

TechTactics

This guy talks bullshit. There's already solar processing plants such as Veolia in France which recycle most of solar waste from the UK.

Reply
User

Master Of Disaster

Nice piece of propaganda mate!

Reply
User

stealthpro123

Only here to see all the eco warriors in the comments

Reply

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *