And don´t forget the one who rose to power to stop the war on coal. The role for coal is shrinking day by day, no matter his backwards arguments and promises.

Anthony Morris you must have a real tiny teenie weenie brain... 2023 was the hottest year in history... AGW is destroying the planet. Yet you think you won because your " still here " OMG get help and an education

There are no battery systems anywhere that can power a city when wind and solar fail.

@@anthonymorris5084 That is because battery technology has been stifled since the 1920s in favor of oil. We are about to see rapid battery development in the next 10 years and we will very soon have a battery system that can do that. When we do, it will be devastating to power companies and they know it.

@@shutinalley We are not currently even close to having this technology, let alone scaling it up to power entire cities. The number of materials required, the mining operations that will begin and the disposal of these toxic materials are also serious challenges. Right now wind and solar represent 3% of global energy. Wind and solar will never replace fossil fuels, it's a pipe dream. They are unreliable and there is nothing "renewable" about them. Just like fossil fuels the materials come from the ground and are finite.

What price does oil and gas have to be for renewables to be cheaper? You don't know do you? If they were cheaper they wouldn't have to be mandated and subsidized. Renewables will never be cheaper because they require coal, gas and nuclear to back them up because they are unreliable.

nuclear is expensive yet it gives people really high energy density, meanwhile renewables are cheap yet their energy density is low compared to coal (plus wind & solar don't last as long as nuclear energy). People got what they paid for...

Are you sponsored by globalist NWO?

Not year round. And you would expect the electricity prices to be the lowest in the country, when in fact they are near the top.

Probably not. I guess China is number one.

The petroleum really helped reach where we are today, and it still holds everything together, but can we make it without it?

Sure, but antimatter or dilithium would be even better. In all seriousness, just realize that in order to replace all the coal, natural gas, and nuclear with solar and wind (in an equal mix), you'd need something like 3-4x as much generating capacity as needed for peak energy needs, and literally weeks worth of energy storage (to get you through the winter, not just overnight). This is compared to needing 1x peak energy needs and no energy storage at all when you run coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Since right now no more than about 10% of the world's energy comes from wind and solar combined, we'd need to build something like 40x more wind and solar than has been installed to date, along with at least a million times as much energy storage as we currently have installed globally. In the meantime, for the decades until that's nearly all built, we will also need to keep pretty much 100% of our current natural gas plants operational to take over when the wind and solar aren't generating (along with any additional natural gas plants needed to replace coal or nuclear plants we get rid of, not to mention increases in demand). Or we could build a bunch of nuclear plants, each directly replacing existing coal and natural gas, and not bother with all that energy storage and overcapacity and land usage and complementary load-balancing natural gas plants.

@@matthewv789 I 100% agree but if we really focused on capturing energy and storing it we could make advancements to store and "take" alot more energy out of the sun in a day to the point where we would only have to build 4x the solar and wind turbines vs 40x solar and wind turbines and storage would be a lot YES but if we actually cared enough to advance it we could get to a point where we can make safe enough storage for energy to power the world let alone the US it would takes years alot of money and a lot of time and research but if start now we could get that done in maybe 100-200 years to the point wed only ever have to rely on maybe nuclear and gas very rarely

but then the real question comes in to play is it worth all of it tho?@@matthewv789

but those batteries for storage uses lithium & it has a low energy density so people need lots of lithium, meanwhile 1 pellet of Uranium is equal to 1 ton of coal

No there’s not lmao they don’t wanna tell you that though

Petroleum is used as a binding agent for plastics because thats what government subsidized/ welfared research and development for these past 50 years. That will change with plant based binding agents, like hemp.

Making gasoline and BURNING IT is not the same thing as making plastic

2 yrs later and U R proven wrong again

Thank you.

@@cornstar1253 what's not renewable is a brain if it gets a tumor from too much EMF. Not claiming any proof there either, but just saying..

Can you explain please?

Al Gore and green billionaires approved this message 😂🤣

The taxpayer pays elon for EVs. Tesla makes money selling Carbon credits not their big ugly golf carts

Battery storage can work, but a) it's expensive compared to natural gas, b) we would need to build about a million times more storage globally than currently exists (which would take a MASSIVE amount of lithium mining), c) wind and solar would need to be over-provisioned by about a factor of 4x compared to peak energy needs, or about 40x what is currently installed in the world (neglecting any increases in demand), which would take a massive amount of land. And in the meantime, until the duration of storage is measured in weeks rather than hours, we'd need to continue operating natural gas plants with equivalent power generation to the total of wind and solar in order to balance loads throughout the day and year (don't forget the havoc winter can wreak on solar generation even during the day). Nuclear plants, on the other hand, would each directly replace coal and natural gas, not require any energy storage, not need to be over-provisioned, take up far less land, and likely cost a LOT less in the long run.

@D Chapo Nope. Geothermal and hydropower too. They have no fuel cost and hydropower is the most efficient way to make electricity in terms of energy out relative to energy in.

@@Jemalacane0 There is only very limited opportunity to expand hydropower globally, compared to nuclear; in drought-stricken areas, declining water levels are already restricting hydro generating capacity. Geothermal has high up-front costs and short plant lifetimes (maybe 25 years) leading to it only barely being cost-competitive using substantial subsidies, has limited known locations at this time, requires a massive amount of land to achieve a high enough generating capacity, has not very high utilization (existing plants generate electricity less than 2/3 of the time), and can cause geotechnical problems such as earthquakes. Currently there is less than 4% as much geothermal in the world as nuclear. I just don't see the expansion of either hydro or geothermal as ever being able to replace more than a tiny fraction of fossil fuel burning.

@@matthewv789 The geothermal power potential in the U.S. is 100 gigawatts. It's about the same for additional hydropower.

@@Jemalacane0 Ok, that means the total expansion of hydropower and geothermal combined can generate about 5% of current US energy needs? Yes, that will solve all of our problems...

@@matthewv789 And geothermal power can run all the time. The heat in the earth is always available. It's definitely not dependent on wind or sun. Not to mention geothermal power has *no fuel cost*.

^ THIS

I was wondering about that. I get the idea but the biggest problem is a potential spill.

@@tanimation7289 luckily, there’s been no spontaneous catastrophe in a functional nation. Chernobyl happened in the Soviet union which wasn’t a functional in terms of keeping it’s citizens secure and free

@@daytoncoates4930 2011 Japan? But I'm still with you, especially with modern reactors they've become extremely safe and reliable where meltdowns on that scale are nearly impossible.

@@bmbunch8825 well, the meltdown wasn’t spontaneous. A tsunami smashed into the reactor, causing the meltdown. So trying to calculate the death toll is like finding the damage done by a pipe-bomb in a tornado

Liberals won't meet that demand, because of meltdowns.

@@anthonypiseno6341 True, and uranium is also an issue. We need to start using thorium.

Yes, but mostly correct, unfortunately.

Matthew, yes that' strue but the video didn't go far enough. The grid needs synchronous generation to keep demand and supply in balance. Renewables, hydro excepted, are asynchronous and cannot supply a grid in isolation, gas, oil or coal generation is essential for a stable grid. Renewables, again hydro excepted, have no inertia which gas, oil coal and nuclear have a great deal of. Again a characterisrtic that renewbles do not have. Intermittency is huge problem, which batteries cannot solve but nothing can solve the unsuited characteristics of renewables as an option to fossil fuels, hydro or nuclear. People that talk of a 100% renewables grid are wrong and probably are unaware of the technicalities, there are a couple more but those are enough to ensure use of fossil fuelled generation for decades to come. Someone ought to tell Governor Newson of California of this.:-)

@@iareid8255 Yes you are completely correct. Batteries might work, but we would need about a million times (literally) more batteries than we currently have installed, because they would need to last for weeks (to get solar through the winter) not just hours or even days. And we’d need to build probably around 4x the amount of solar and wind as is needed at peak generating times, if not more, just to be generating enough surplus to charge the batteries, which is to say about 40x more wind and solar than currently exists in the world. Until we have that, every unit of solar and wind must be paired with an equivalent amount of natural gas generation, which ends up generating most of the power but yet sits idle much of the time, too. (Natural gas because it can spin up and down pretty quickly, and the plants are cheap to build, so don’t cost as much to be idle. But the gas itself is kind of expensive and going up in price as well as demand, just as the fossil fuel industry has been planning for decades by killing nuclear and promoting renewables.) Despite these backup generators, grid instability is increasingly a problem the more wind and solar is added. Naturally batteries, over-provisioning, and partly idle natural gas plants add considerably to the cost of wind and solar, but nobody ever includes them in the quoted cost. That’s why the more wind and solar there is, the higher electricity prices tend to get despite them supposedly being among the cheapest forms of energy. This could all be avoided by focusing on nuclear, instead, as we should have been for the past 50 years. (Hydro has only very limited opportunities for growth.) We wouldn’t be in anywhere near the same climate mess today if we’d done that, and wouldn’t be scrambling with how to replace all those fossil fuels, because we would have already largely done so in many countries.

Mathew, Nuclear has been neglected but slowly it is beginning to dawn that renewables are not working although many governments have yet to learn that lesson. There has been so much ill informed opposition to nuclear that trying to build them is very expensive due to the time it takes to get past all the opposition.. For non CO2 generating electricity there is no choice, (except hydro for the very few who have the right geography and rainfall), it is nuclear.

@@iareid8255 Yes, exactly. Only nuclear has to strictly control for all of its waste products and adhere to such high safety standards, which makes it more expensive to construct. If fossil fuels had to live up to the same standards they'd be insanely expensive. But nuclear still manages to be cheap in the long run, and among the safest, cleanest, and most reliable sources of electricity. It's insane that plants are being retired early and countries are trying to transition AWAY from nuclear. Stupidest capitulation to the fossil fuel industry I have ever seen, and sure to guarantee that nothing will effectively be done to reduce carbon emissions for years or decades into the future.

1. The world spins you moron. You're 2nd point was right tho.

Uploader of many things [hrthrhs] 1. You moron, one side of the world always has sunlight.

So, you give up upwards of 90% of the productivity of a solar panel on cloudy days? It sounds like shit.

Guys wtf is wrong with you she is right in what she says

@@alexandraklam7781 another moron