Renewable Energy is The Scam We All Fell For

[@That_sand_guy]

I was thinking about installing solar panels on my roof but this video convinced me to install a nuclear reactor instead, very helpful advice.

[@simpleman949]

LOL

[@jgperes]

Wait no

[@BenState]

exactly

[@BenState]

@@hibbidyjibbidyy again, if you look at actual data, even this, is minimal compared to fossil fuels... what aboutism is so lame

[@himanshujain933]

LOL

[@marcredgate7288]

Ive had solar on my roof for 21 years and haven’t paid a dime to my utility company. They paid for themselves in five years. A well designed solar system can last forty years.

[@madlad4206]

It's just not efficient enough tho. 25% land in Britain simply cannot be covered by solar panels

[@nymerianan4short314]

And what happens if them fields of solar panels get broken??

[@petuniasevan]

@@nymerianan4short314 You order more at exorbitant (and extortionist) cost from the Chinese. Who are polluting the whole world making those things.

[@Justology]

@@madlad4206 it doesn’t need to be on land. Rooftops are a common option. Obviously no one is suggesting that solar is the only option. My 12kW array powers my entire home, and the total cost is about 1/3rd of what buying the same power from the utility would be.

[@Justology]

@@nymerianan4short314 you fix them. Are you under the impression that the current electric grid doesn’t break down or require maintenance? Solar panels require far less maintenance than traditional power. No moving parts, just a natural reaction that creates electricity. Occasional cleaning is the only regular maintenance, and in some climates even cleaning is not regularly needed.

[@hopper727rs]

Hello, for transparency; I have 6 years of working as a wind technician and 1 year working in an operation center overseeing wind and solar.Other than working experience I am also PJM and NERC certified. I'm here to clear a little bit of this up. 1. Bird strikes: Yes, there are avian strikes that happen on occasions however these are non endangered species. Every single wind site that has endangered species employs avian monitors that are across the site monitoring any avian presence and curtail entire zones of turbines to prevent any strikes from happening. These monitors also team up with automatic curtailment devices that track all avian activity and curtail the towers if it senses any avian activity. These devices are so sensitive they will occasionally curtail for planes by accident. 2. Yes, it is an intermittent resource that does not produce at maximum capacity 100% of the time, using the phrasing "optimally less than 30% of the time" is misleading and I feel you're doing that on purpose. Don't do that, I hope you're better than that. Most resources run around 70% capacity for the majority of the time and that is for wind. Solar produces very optimally during the day and very very rarely fall below 99.5% availability. In regards to the less than 10% claim you made, yes that happens however it doesn't happen anymore, you're referring to two different things here, the first is very old farms that were built with bad planning, and there are very few that meet this standard you've stated here. The second is those very few *very* rich people who want to build these farms as tax breaks, again a very rare circumstance but it happens. 3. I'm not against nuclear and I will touch on this more later however, just as you stated, those massive turbines have a tremendous mass, and once that inertial energy has been lost it takes a long time to restart, and in an event where a tie-line has been opened on the grid, restoring that power may take hours or in worse case scenarios days. Once a nuclear turbine has lost all inertia and power, it takes 48 hours of power from outside sources to restore the unit to an operating status. 4. The land usage that you're referring to sounds disastrous and overwhelming because that is how you are phrasing it. Yes, completely clearing the land of everything would be terrible however that is not what happens. What happens is farms are usually built on landowners property that maintain cattle and grow crops such as wheat, corn, cotton etc. These farmers are also paid by the wind turbine owners for the usage of land for loss of crop space plus a premium for simply allowing the turbines to be there(which is actually a very healthy amount) The pad of the turbine is typically only 25 foot in diameter. You say its inefficient because of the erroneous numbers you used. The actual space used by the turbines is a lot less than you're portraying it. The farm I worked at had 54 turbines with 25 foot padmounts. That is only 27,000 sq ft of land (roughly, I would be more than happy for a correction) for a 130 MW site. That would be 130,000,000 watts of energy per 2508 sq meters. (again, I'm no mathematician, I welcome corrections to my math) Assuming my numbers are correct until I can get someone better at math to correct me, the energy production vs area taken changes a little doesn't it? 5. Whats this the asterix at the end of the wind turbine death count? OSHA is all over every single injury in all working fields, you can't just push a death under the rug, these numbers are very accurate. I fully agree on nuclear however, it has caught a bad wrap from the major meltdowns. However your argument of how nuclear gets rid of nuclear bombs is a little off the wall, the bombs already made are a very finite resource to power theses plants. Finally, it should go without saying that a push to environmentally friendly methods to sustain the energy grid should always be a goal and misrepresenting one of the best methods we have for this is not the way to go about it. *TLDR VERSION* Wind is heavily misrepresented in this video however I'm not saying nuclear is an enemy. The most CO2 efficient and reuse-able methods should be used to sustain the grid i.e. wind and nuclear, followed by hydro and solar and lastly coal.

[@TheHipOneMusic]

My man just destroyed moustache guy

[@euphoniahale5181]

hopper727rs damn you know your shit.

[@Chuck_Hooks]

Eagle carcass counting under wind turbines in Norway kzbin.info/www/bejne/fWnYZ3Vnm9Jnh7M

[@haydenoakley5271]

I also work in renewables, mostly solar. Came here to say this. Very biased/generally bad research here.

[@FESTV]

So what do you say about this link down there with dead eagles ? Ok you said it . Now response ?

[@virtual-viking]

"You cant ignore statistics." The public: "Hold my beer..."

[@someonescat8043]

Yeah it’s in our nature just look at the US.

[@lawlessfarming9878]

Nahh....we all know its only democrats that fall for this bs

[@LiezAllLiez]

Statistics... right. The same statistics that claim two people earn 50 bucks on average. Except... one of those two people earns 100, while the other is a bum begging for change under the liquor store.

[@lawlessfarming9878]

@@LiezAllLiez you sound like a libtard?

[@philippefossier7178]

As soon as they turned 3, I had my kids on bicycles connected to a home generator and a battery pack. They are growing up strong and healthy and we're off the grid. Can't wait for the new baby to turn 3 as we're planning to move up to a bigger TV. Thank you for the wise advice.

[@mahatmagaand]

That is so wholesome to read.

[@billybob1723]

@Philippe Fossier - Feed them beans and rice and all the meat is yours!

[@fanofcodd]

Don't feed them too much to reduce the carbon footprint. Agriculture is one of the main carbon emission.

[@stephendoherty8291]

Don't forget to rope in the neighborhood kids at Birthdays and Christmas. Dogs can also be useful in a treadmill plus you can use the coat "afterwards". Remember the baby waste can be used to generate methane and reused in the gas stove.

[@phoenixrising4073]

Omg I first read this as though your kids were on e-bikes and were charging off of the house. That certainly made this confusing lol!

[@robertzeurunkl8401]

12:15 - Using decommed nuclear weapons fuel as fuel for electricity is almost literally the nations "beating their swords into plowshares".

[@malachiramel9516]

Thank you soo much for posting that! God bless you, brother!

[@maxnikolenko2302]

Beautiful

[@blindsniper9794]

Preach

[@zaibian7]

A technology that is five years away from commercial scale... and always will be. Fusion reactors have been only a few years away since I was in Highschool thirty years ago. The same is happening with all of the other alternative nuclear technologies that the nuclear industry has been pushing for the last couple of decades. The question of how to replace fossil fuels with nuclear without starting a new nuclear arms race hasn't been answered. That can only happen when every nation can trust every other nation not to try to build a nuclear arms industry in secret. Nuclear weapons are only decommissioned because they are no longer fully functional and need to be replaced. So, the number only decreases when there are better, more powerful ones to make up the difference. There are still enough to end human life several times over. The fossil fuel industry has been pushing for nuclear power as a wedge issue to undermine the renewable energy industry for a while. Maybe there is a future for nuclear power many decades from now, but for the moment it is little more than a distraction from solving real world problems with real world solutions.

[@foxfire6658]

I'll gain 5 life then.....

[@xxXMusickXx]

Never liked the term "Save the planet" I prefer George Carlin's view "The planet isn't going anywhere... WE are!"

[@spiko-ou3bp]

Yes

[@RSClassicAngel]

Exactly

[@palimac]

Well, we do need to keep this one safe enough until we can get to that *elsewhere*. So pay attention please, your life may not be at stake here, depending on your age, but that of your grandchildren and theirs is. If you have none, that of your nephews and their grandchildren is at stake. I do not see humanity going anywhere off-world in the coming decades.Or perhaps even centuries. SO the term "save the planet" is very valid, unless you have something to share....

[@xxXMusickXx]

@@palimac Not too familiar with George Carlin are you?

[@palimac]

@@xxXMusickXx I know who he is. But what was valid then is not so now. The ideals and thoughts then are 4 decades old and for the most part invalid. It was also the time that nuclear was banned on principle rather than actual facts.

[@alexsmith2269]

I like how this is a serious issue and the music is so upbeat and cheery.

[@DrywallJackson]

13:38 “I’m not actively trying to disparage renewables” Title of the video: Renewable Energy is a Scam

[@adfaklsdjf]

Oh, you beat me to it.. I ended up posting the same thing.

[@justawarlord]

it is a scam with the amount of money pumped into it already and they still only are barely even 1% of all enegry used XD

[@blackholeproductions]

can't blame him gotta get clicks somehow

[@MrbigPnslolisaidpns]

Lmao and the video actually used to be called “why renewable energy will kill us all”. This was changed soon after he uploaded the video though.

[@conalcochranh3274]

In the long run, without the inclusion of other methods, it is a scam.

[@finnschutte3769]

In Germany, about 4000 birds were killed from 2002 to 2019 due to wind tuebines. but about 18mil every year due to glass.

[@SubscribeForKitty]

You hipocrate. What about all the chickens and turkeys that killed for food. How many is that? They are birds too!

[@finnschutte3769]

@@SubscribeForKitty And what has that to do with Renewable Energy and wind turbines ?

[@Nick-wf4sq]

@@finnschutte3769 I think its a joke he literally has a recipe for turkey uploaded on his channel.

[@nikob381]

So we should also bring back beautiful stone architecture and do away with glass rectangle monstrosities.

[@BoB-Dobbs_leaning-left]

According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, collisions with turbines kill between 140,000 and 500,000 birds annually. Other energy sources, such as coal, oil and power lines, contribute to millions of bird deaths. However, cats remain the biggest threat to birds, killing an estimated 1.3 to 4 billion birds each year.

[@SneedyKetler]

As one of the many supervillains that reside in Gotham City, I am interested in knowing more about this exciting new bat-killing technology.

[@SISYPHEgame]

Underrated comment

[@MrRezillo]

big LOL!

[@cinegraphics]

Fukushima killed a lot of bats. And radioactive waste from the nuclear power plants, if properly dumped into the caves, can kill billions of bats. So, if you wanna kill living creatures, nuclear is the way to go.

[@Batman-ro9mj]

Where abouts in Gotham ?

[@No-yr9rs]

Yes

[@NewsJunkie4ever]

Where I live, 100% of our energy is hydro electric. Zero "carbon". Yet our gov decided to install a bunch of windmills, at huge cost in terms of money and carbon emissions. Wtf.

[@blisterbrain]

Somebody got paid.

[@adamalexander4883]

Pretty much anytime that a large scale, government-backed decision makes absolutely no sense to anybody and seems to make everything worse, you can bet your bottom dollar that somewhere in the background, a shithead or a group of shitheads are making a lot of money.

[@tsubadaikhan6332]

Placement. Perhaps you're in a windy place, and providing electricity to somewhere not windy. And, one of the massive bonuses of hydro is you only produce what you want, when you want. Wind would leave more water in the dam. I'm on the West Coast of Australia. We don't even have enough fresh water to drink. We're building our 3rd desalination plant that supposedly is solar powered. It all depends on where you are.

[@Jonathan-eo2sf]

Let me guess: Norway? (Thats the only place out of 3 Places in the world, where you could theoretycly power the country with reneweble energy)

[@TrustinGodaydays]

Is this New Zealand?

[@dcvk6250]

Nuclear Energy: **Is safe** Every politician: “I’m going to pretend like I didn’t see that”

[@AlexM-xj7qd]

Nuclear energy has the power to save lives and our planet alike

[@knottheory79220]

Honestly, nuclear is something we should have kept going with, every new technology is going to have some initial downsides.

[@pablorodriguez5510]

Is not a bad option, however, the nuclear waste and dangers of uranium are still very high. It would be more safe if Thorium would be used for this; sadly, the technology required for this hasn’t been properly developed yet and it’s extremely expensive....

[@hiddendesire3076]

Pablo Rodríguez We are at the point we can repurpose over 90% of the waste produced for further energy production. With the recent (as of three years ago if you can call it recent) radiotropic mushroom of chernobyl which use radiosynthesis, they are able to feed off the waste and drastically reduce the radioactivity of the waste.

[@ddxinthehouse]

@@hiddendesire3076 badass shrooms

[@steeldriver1776]

In my county in the US, there’s a nuclear power plant. It’s one of many owned across many states. It’s the largest employer in the county and you can tell who works for them. Their pay is excellent and they give back to the community. They also open about 80% of their 30K acres to the public for hunting, fishing, camping and recreation.

[@rogerphelps9939]

Why on Earth do they need 30k acres? Is that the exclusion zone?

[@steeldriver1776]

@@rogerphelps9939 part of it. They had to buy "X" amount when they went to flood the county a century ago. State also makes them maintain hunting and natural lands to promote wildlife, growth and clean air to offset any potential damage. That's only 47 square miles so not as large as it sounds (almost 7 x 7 miles if was square). By comparison, most US cities are much larger, and the department of energy owns far less than department of defense, agriculture, and others. Even Bezos, Gates, Musk and Ted Turner have lands and ranches exceeding 10 times this area.

[@The_Scutarii]

Guessing TVA. They do that and have bull run nuclear plant about hourish from me. 175,000 acres of undeveloped land is owned by them and free to hunt on.

[@steeldriver1776]

@@The_Scutarii Close. Duke Energy. Both Duke and TVA are 2 of the big 6 power companies in the East Coast US. Duke has NC, SC, FL and Indiana. TVA has Tennessee, Kentucky and parts of Mississippi, Georgia and Alabama.

[@Mossyoakwendigo4.6]

@@steeldriver1776 heck, dukes got a plant in my local area here in sc. They’ve employed many in my area, some of my relatives work there or have in the past. People being alarmed by a power plant having 30k acres, pffft, just a few miles away from the plant is a wildlife refuge that currently has almost 50,000 acres of land and is growing bigger by the year.

[@tech29X]

No worries; There's plenty of wind power being generated at UK's parliament.

[@reign_of_stuka8991]

Hahaha nice one

[@CuoreSportivo]

that's natural gas actually

[@jonplaud]

And in the "United" States

[@franchocou]

I didn't get it

[@CuoreSportivo]

@@franchocou we mean fart

[@ecospider5]

Pro nuclear energy doesn’t need to be anti-green energy.

[@samu6982]

Better title: why nuclear energy isn't that bad

[@eccomi21]

and it actually isnt if we can find a nice way to store the waste

[@zee9709]

@@eccomi21 if you think about it, we better store a waste underground rather than spread it in atmosfer like fossil fuel

[@eccomi21]

@@zee9709 well yes. If we can actually do that. And we can. The only other problem is when shit hits the fan as we saw in Chernobyl and Fukushima. My point of view simply is that nuclear energy is a clean and viable resource as long as it is done right. Basically the tradeoff for a clean atmosphere is a possible local radioactive wasteland. Unless we get nuclear fusion going.

[@cadkls]

@@eccomi21 Show me how many people died of radiation poisoning in either of the only two events that antinuclear proponents can cite, both of which were built poorly and had corners being cut to save money.

[@abirneji]

@@cadkls isn't thorium meant to fix this? also hows the progress on that going?

[@elireading7401]

Solar energy is useful for small remote community where the cost of delivering the energy to them is excessive (cable, transformers, etc.) .

[@SerenityPrim3]

a fine example of a case in which renewable is most reliable

[@urbosasfurry2126]

Transformers are more than meets the eye.

[@jonasn5]

It is generally useful anywhere there is unused cheap space and enough sun. Its a game of time as the solar still pays itself back eventually.

[@Reedith]

As this may be true his point still rings that it's only good if it's done right not the cheap way which is the way it's getting done right now because of its popularity

[@Ubba00]

also in countrys with sunny days and enought exess land to place them. Like most of Africa, North America and Parts of Asia

[@The9thDoctor]

I didn't expect him to start talking about thorium, but its a good thing that thorium molten salt reactors are gaining attention. Thanks!

[@svenmohamad8646]

I didn't either, or the reason for its rejections,, Honestly through 🙋💝

[@computerbiscuit9585]

Lol i learned about thorium from a Sam o’nella video, and it’s a really good fuel.

[@RafaelBrum]

@@computerbiscuit9585 That's a nice source of information

[@annechester770]

SATAN KILLER !

[@hotgluegunguy]

@@annechester770 Please explain how it's a death wish. The statistics state the opposite.

[@ecospider5]

Yes let’s make wind turbines safer for birds. And maybe also focus on the things that cause 99% of the bird fatalities. Birds killed each year by cause Wind turbines 28,000 0.01% Buildings 550M 58.2% Power lines 130M 13.7% Cats 100M 10.6% Vehicles 80M 8.5% Pesticides 67M 7.1% Radio towers 4.5M 0.5% Wind turbines 28,000 0.01% Airplanes 25,000 0.01%

[@robertgutheridge9672]

I have been a wind turbine tech for 20 years and yes they have draw backs. But what gets me is the number of birds they claim are killed by them. First off the rotors only turn at between 13 to 20 RPM on most large turbines its not hard for a bird to avoid. And that any bird found dead normally with in a 2 mile area is blamed on the turbine so studies have went as far as 5 miles Plus cat's and cars kill many times more birds than turbines. And of a large number of the dead birds found around turbines that have been autopsied as many as 30% show poison in them. But the media and special interests groups often don't tell the complete truth and they like to embellish the partial truth. But wind turbines do have many downsides. I just wanted to get more of the truth about the bird numbers out.

[@darkhalocraft4515]

The media and special interest groups often don't tell the truth I just wanted to say that maybe alot of them are unaware or don't believe the things mentioned here.

[@robertgutheridge9672]

@@darkhalocraft4515 that is exactly what it is. The media doesn't tell the whole story or sometimes blatant lies about things. And often even when they do tell the truth they put the information at in as absolutely negative ways as possible.

[@TheSucram729]

Yep mainstream media has its ways of not doing its complete research before releasing “information” to the public. Since you work in the wind energy sector, could you shed some light on the downsides or shortcomings of turbines?

[@NeepSheepGaming]

Finishing up my wind turbine technicians course in a couple of months. Looking forward to getting to work

[@robertgutheridge9672]

@@NeepSheepGaming welcome to the career. It's made me a good living. And you have the advantage of tech school. 20 years ago a lot of stuff we had to figure out on the fly. Be safe and keep your safety lines clipped in. And hopefully in 20 years you can be teaching the next generation how to do this job.

[@hmyre]

«The most prominent today is Germany with 40-50% renewable energy». Over 96% of the energy produced in Norway is hydropower.

[@stuartlawsonbeattie1411]

and they got oil as well dude.

[@starfox300]

It was an example next to France.

[@hmyre]

Stuart Lawson Beattie That’s not really relevant to my point, though. So does a lot of other countries.

[@jdg9999]

Do you know what prominent means? It doesn't mean best. It just means most well known.

[@matto8729]

@@stuartlawsonbeattie1411 and every other country dosent have oil? including germany? hmm

[@gdrums7733]

I have a large team of hamsters running round a cage attached to a generator for the small amount of electricity I use. The down side is the cost of hamster feed and replacement hamsters. There is a world shortage of hamsters which I was not told about before committing fully to hamster power. I tried rats but they are lazy and fight with the hamsters.

[@InsideOfMyOwnMind]

Just put the kids to work on it while they play their Grand Theft Auto. They're getting too fat anyway.

[@OvertravelX]

Wouldn’t burning the hamsters be more efficient?

[@InsideOfMyOwnMind]

@@OvertravelX I almost continued my comment above in the spirit of yours here but cooler heads prevailed.

[@gdrums7733]

Only when they have a moisture contents of less than 10%, this process leads itself to odours that are unpleasant. On a more serious note I went down the solar and ASHP route 3 years ago, I was using an oil fired boiler, the cost money saving benefit is very long term, but the decarbonisation in fuel use is instant, albeit the carbon footprint of the manufacture of the items is high, but will neutralise over a short period of time. I never really though of the disposal of the panel problem, but that has to be regulated for. I do think nuclear is the way forward, but this presents its own problems, one thing the presenter didn’t mention is cement and steel manufacture have very high carbon foot prints, and nuclear power stations use a lot of both.

[@arawncronnis3112]

Lmao 🤣🤣🤣 i didn't knew u could be independent by hamster power 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@rustyshaklferd1897]

The US averages 38% coal burning for electricity. Yes your Tesla runs on coal.

[@ianmclaughlin8987]

Hippies dont care about that, as long as they look virtuous

[@megashadow1390]

Eh misleading at best, key word here is 'average' and 'US'. Whatever your EV runs on will end up depending on your local/regional resources, not national... so yes, there's several places around the US where EVs do NOT run on coal. It's also possible to run 100% on solar if you have solar panels and battery storage. Also, unlike engines, EV don't keep polluting from their tailpipes, the higher carbon footprint of making an EV is offset on average in 1-2 years in the US; a gas car will well exceed that carbon footprint through the rest of its lifetime of use.

[@johnsuarez1404]

Electric cars are amazing but we aren't ready for them! It's still a toxic and destructive process to produce them. They are the future but they're ahead of their time.

[@megashadow1390]

@@johnsuarez1404 they're still considerably less toxic than gas cars, simply do your own research and google 'are evs worse than gas engines' and learn the truth yourself. Data doesn't lie, on average the carbon cost of making an EV is offset by 1-2 years of use depending of where you live

[@mrbig7718]

​@@megashadow1390I take it you're from a place that doesn't get hurricanes, tornadoes, heavy snow or earthquakes.

[@inszel]

thanks for actually looking at thorium reactors. most people who take on the topic skip right over it wholesale.

[@KinghtofZero00]

True,This is the first time I've ever heard of thorium and I watched quite of few videos on this subject

[@seb_5969]

sadly there are very good reasons not to use Thoriumin a molten salt reactor, the most common suggested type. A few links to read up: kevinmeyerson.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/thorium-nuclear-information-resources/, independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/dont-believe-thorium-nuclear-reactor-hype,4919, It is possible that we will fix all these problems, but not in the next 10 years, and india alone certainly won't!

[@stefanotherisod3311]

@@seb_5969 , my understanding is that Thorium based breeder reactors are indeed quite complex but it should be possible to have working MSR (Molten Salt Reactors) in 5-10 years. In those reactors should be possible to burn with high efficiency the Uranium end Plutonium considered waste by the traditional PWR (Pressure Water Reactors) that use solid fuel. Once we have MSR the following step would be to build Torium based breeder reactors.

[@guidokorber2866]

Thorium reactors are just the latest scam of an industry that failed to deliver on its promises for decades. Besides a lot of technical problems they are simply too expensive. Contrary to the bullshit presented in this video renewables are unbeatable cheap.

[@guytheincognito4186]

@@guidokorber2866 Not for the environment. We need to many that give to little.

[@meme5546]

I am an electrical engineer and I agree with this video, if you take politics out of science, the world of alternative energy will look much different.

[@zacharyahearn4069]

Ohm my gosh really?

[@----.__]

@@zacharyahearn4069 Watt do you mean?

[@stevekamala]

Very true, politics kills a lot of good

[@ut7369]

@@stevekamala same profile pic

[@obvioustruth]

You don't store excess energy in batteries. This is stupid idea. You build elevated lakes and pump water up to them, and release that water to run turbines when needed. You can do other things too.

[@turdbomitch9007]

Been on solar for 5 years now with no issues and my total all up cost was about 3k. But I am currently saving up for a small nuclear reactor.

[@hnn8759]

This a joke right

[@DaveOTech]

@@hnn8759 no

[@hnn8759]

@@DaveOTech can you share the amazon link for nuclear reactor

[@w8stral]

Stop lying. You can't even get a big enough inverter for 3k

[@harmen1832]

@@w8stral Yes you can. I have had 10 solar panels and an inverter installed this year for €3,5k in total

[@judymiller975]

I'm amazed that this is allowed to be seen in 2023. Australia is just starting to go down this path, and already our power bills have doubled, and our current government is hell-bent on continuing.

[@dianapennepacker6854]

You sure that is due to renewables? Something tells me there is more to it. Prices everywhere are increasing. Nuclear would be more expensive too. Nuclear is a lot of things, but you won't see any return on investment for ages, especially since every single effin plant goes over budget by billions upon billions. Side note for anyone reading. Decentralization of the grid is one of the benefits of renewables honestly.

[@whatsthisnow101]

Australia should have the cheapest power on the planet, vast areas, lots of sun and wind. I suspect there is corruption somewhere in the system. I work on lots of projects with solar PV and even in the UK they payback well within their life span and will pay back several times the initial investment.

[@jayhooliee919]

The whole world is corrupted if you all haven't noticed... the whole globe has been through a major scam since 2019... if you're to blind to see.... I don't know what to say

[@elPanconPasta]

I think it actually might be the gambling ring and corruption, and arresting of whistleblowers, and the terrible government, not renewable energy, although that might have a slight thing to do with it.

[@thelordofcringe]

Gotta love putting dozens of tons of pollution into the air to make the metal and batteries and frame for a single windmill then claiming it never happened so that it can beat coal in emissions!

[@wouldntyouliketoknow9891]

6:00 - 6:26 everything in this section is completely wrong. Rotational inertia is only useful for frequency regulation during very brief load excursions. It is not a source of generated power. (They actually tried to use it as such at Chernobyl, and that [plus incompetence] is what led to the accident). Even with the immense mass of a turbine rotor, it will still begin spinning down immediately when input power is lost. It only has to slow down by 0.9% before any power generated would be useless due to under frequency. Also they don't store as much rotational inertia as you would think. Although their mass is very heavy, most of it is in the center shaft. The portion with the best second moment of inertia (the turbine blades) is fairly light. The generator breaker will trip automatically as soon as the frequency goes under 59.3-59.5Hz, at which point the generator is no longer connected to the grid anyway and the remaining spin down of the rotor is useless. By the way all this happens in a fraction of a second, not minutes. We use cycles as a time unit. 60 cycles = 1 second. Rotor will be under frequency in 15-20 cycles, and it will take another 5-8 cycles for the generator breaker to trip. So in half a second, its all over.

[@marcusjohnson6412]

Thank you for clarifying some of the misinformation presented in this video. This is probably his worst video yet.

[@wouldntyouliketoknow9891]

@simpsons Bart wow. I literally cannot understand any of that 🤣

[@m8onethousand]

@simpsons Bart I don't know if English is your third or fourth language (it clearly isn't your 1st or 2nd), but holy fuck that drivel is unreadable.

[@MichaelBrown-di5jn]

@@wouldntyouliketoknow9891 I want what he's having... looks like a fun ride!

[@abdulgoffaralmubarok115]

@@m8onethousand can you imagine how confusing it is for non native English speakers (like me) to understand what he said?

[@laurapitt3968]

Legend has it, movement from his right eyebrow creates enough energy to power NYC

[@dennysmith7862]

Now now Laura....play nicely...😄😄😄😄

[@TNGYun]

Lmfao

[@clumsybanana6524]

Its true. And we love him for it

[@secularhumanist8662]

hahahaha, that's hilarious!

[@_a.z]

Let's hope the left one doesn't kick in!

[@GriffinheartPlays]

Thorium, named after the Norse god Thor, the god of Thunder, Strength, and Might. Quite suiting as the name of a power source

[@jackdurden466]

That comment completely got me on board! There’s no chance that anything that is involved with Thor can or would go wrong.

[@GriffinheartPlays]

@@jackdurden466 Yeah, just don't put any snakes and giants near that thing

[@patricksarama4963]

@@jackdurden466 Unfortunately thorium reactors won't have awesome beards like Thor

[@Seriously_Unserious]

Just keep Loki away, that divine trickter's jealous of Thor and will do anything to mess up Thor's reputation.

[@noelgillett346]

Thorium is among several elements with similar esoteric origins, this reflective of the underlying yet hidden covenant between extreme occultism and high science among the elites who own that as one among many assets in their portfolios. Arsenic is the basis of the arsenal and thus the cannon of the Holly Roman Church, this with its similarly referenced number of "The Perfected Man" at 33. Iodine, strangely enough, would appear to connote "The Eye of Odin" . And Carbon per its 6 nuetrons, electrons and protons denotes the 666 of the Devil himself, a fact highly exploited by way of our own popular and scientific nomenclature, all in plain view. As in my own family, it's "Car-Gill" as founded by "The Will-that-I-Am" of William the Conqueror as the God-King of grain and flour, or rather "Flower Power" as "Fowler Power" as a clever way of celebrating the one and only, true founding father of all that Hitler and Himmler ever hoped realized in their own visions of a global "Reich"--Heinrich the Fowler. We all worship the Owl that is Fowl, all of us sadomasochistic little perverts running around with our heads full of stupid false yammer. and that's the way we like it. by design. Ancients Gods in modern days, hide their status with fig leaves of denial. The Nile. Bad joke. Stinging zinger. Wins the debate, every time. Today's standards of "reasoning" akin to the proclivities of the dictator's dick, there's barely any of us left willing and able to talk sense about anything in any context at all. A miracle then occurs in the rare instances when our words actually create outcomes with respect to understandings. Techno-occultism. It's not just about the Batman, 007 and Dr. W.H.O., or Sherlock. Yet when those characters are understood and combined into one, the broader argument deriving from the observation of the elements makes too much sense. hauntingly so.

[@challism]

Not ALL of us fell for it. Some of us have been paying attention for decades, trying to wake up the rest of the sheeple while being mocked the entire time.

[@srensrensen6269]

The title is a bit clickbaity, should have been something like "Why nuclear is actually cleaner and safer than renwables" Would be nice if you included sources, because there are a few mistakes here. 1:52 Windturbine blades are made of glass fiber, not aluminium. 2:15 Most estimates are that windturbines do not kill very many birds, compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats in the US. eu.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/15/wind-turbines-kill-fewer-birds-than-cell-towers-cats/15683843/ 4:50 We're currently developing alternative storage options for renewables. A 100 MWh volcanic stones battery is these days being build in Germany as a large scale pilot project, after a smaller pilot project was successful in Denmark. www.siemensgamesa.com/en-int/explore/innovations/energy-storage-on-the-rise 6:22 It's extreme unlikely that entire windfarms will shutdown without notice and there are backup systems on the grid like gasturbines, that will kick in in case of a failure. 7:12 Vegetation and wildlife can live in harmony with renewables. In Denmark we have sheep walking around our solar farms, so we don't have to cut the grass. www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2019/06/is-vegetation-management-a-problem-for-your-solar-farm-just-add-sheep.html 7:55 Worth mentioning that the main reason windfarms are build offshore is so we don't have to look at them, they are less CO2 efficient and cost more compared to onshore. 9:42 Deaths from nuclear could be a lot higher depending on if you include only direct death and what statistics you use. www.bbc.com/future/story/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll 11:09 The number you use for wind is way off. A Siemens Gamesa 8.0-167 DD like we see at 0:30 emit only 6 gCO2/kWh. www.siemensgamesa.com/en-int/-/media/siemensgamesa/downloads/en/sustainability/environment/siemens-gamesa-environmental-product-declaration-epd-sg-8-0-167.pdf 13:09 Energy production makes up only a fraction of the total CO2 emissions from developed countries. I would recommend using the grids CO2 emission / kWh figures instead. Recommend www.electricitymap.org 13:23 Those numbers must included taxes, because they are way to high. You need to look at the average electricity spot price to compare. It's not that I disagree that nuclear is a great option for producing energy, but you gotta get the facts right.

[@tadmikowsky7520]

Nice work man - thanks for the detailed response.

[@aednil]

thank you! 42 talked so much nonsense in this video that I have to wonder if this video is some strange out of character thing or if he's always been playing fast and loose with the truth.

[@djpickle68]

@soren a tour deforce well done!

[@djpickle68]

@Vlad the Inhaler I would take a solar or wind spill over an oil spill any day.....oh wait.....thats not actually a thing.

[@junkyardchic3604]

@@djpickle68 Farmers in the 🇺🇸 that have leased out unused land for solar farms have found out the hard way that when the leased ended or was abandoned the clean up was so toxic the cost put them under. Now they are a little shy of leasing for wind.

[@rishabhtiwari4317]

Thank you 42 for addressing this huge misconception.... Whenever I tried to explain anyone about this , I was labelled a "climate change denier"...

[@tuongpham7609]

When i point out that the green new deal calls for decomitions of nuclear plants, i also get called a climate change denier.

[@rahulg2961]

It's thoughty 2. Lmao not 42

[@easley421]

Some seriously uninformed people both producing this channel and commenting on it. Do any of you know the half life of uranium? Do you know that no matter how you store it, it still leaks at some point?

[@neruy3112]

@HEAV¥HAND well, there is no god

[@BlackBow86]

@@Chris-rg6nm Clickbait?do you even watch the video and listen to it?Or do you ignore the facts that he stated?

[@jesseh1677]

The miss information people spread about nuclear is so frustrating. Here in Australia most the politicians are terrified of it and just instantly dismiss it

[@hiddendesire3076]

Oh trust me, I know how the ill-informed can be. In my environmental bio course I gave what was essentially the full argument presented in this video in a debate. My classmates hated my guts, but the teacher vouched for my argument against the class (whole bunch of butt-hurt liberals who didn’t like me trash talking their so call green energy).

[@jesseh1677]

@@hiddendesire3076 in my area we currently have politicians pushing to have a nuclear reactor but there getting so much push back. There only excuse to push back is because apparently it would "ruin tourism" for some unknown reasons

[@MermaidTyrone]

@@hiddendesire3076 Le triggered libtard xd toetaly epic underdog warrior against the mainstream. You really showed them

[@jesseh1677]

@Ghost 67 Linux ok please present a counter argument and debunk the points made in the video. I don't care which argument wins as long as its the better option overall. If the video is wrong please point out why?

[@jesseh1677]

@Paavo yeah i think most people just dont know how it works and are just worried about how safe it is. We just need more videos like this explaining the benefits and not fear mongering

[@Kahneq]

I love hearing opposing perspectives to the one my information is based on, but only when those perspectives have information behind them.

[@Scream_Lord]

TL:DR Go nuclear, deconstruct coal power plants, use green energy as a supplementary power source.

[@Chris-ie9os]

Why build 1GW of nuclear when you can build ~10GW of wind or solar for the same cost?

[@Chris-ie9os]

@Bick Barl What is this 'hard upper cap' on wind?

[@Leggir]

@@Chris-ie9os Because land use is an issue. Also, because like my recent trip to a local island, we had +30C/100% Humidity, but no wind and it was overcast for days. So A/C and other power needs had to be met by something other than renewables. The other issue frequently overlooked, is solar power generation is done by string inverters, as a cloud moves across the sky, if only one panel is obstructed it will cause that string to fail until the light is restored. So on a mixed sun and cloud day, the grid can constantly be up and down. It's unfortunate, and maybe if we ever figure out IR panels this will be less of an issue.

[@Chris-ie9os]

@@Leggir LOL; WOW.... that's a lot of wrong you were able to squeeze in! 1) Solar doesn't require much land.

[@justawarlord]

i have been saying this for years and when people point to chernoble or japan i say a tsunami how often does that happe and the soviet unions incompetency how often does that happen

[@guacamoleman87]

One of my electronic engineering teachers was preaching this about renewable energies 12 years ago and was very pro nuclear. Which i thought was odd at the time but then slowly became my exact take on the whole subject. But people really are afraid of nuclear energy

[@TheTuta69]

Yep, I had a teacher at university two years ago that taught electrical engineering, he was very oriented towards nuclear energy supremacy

[@gabemerritt3139]

By the numbers it's the clear decision. Chernobyl could never happen again with modern reactor designs. Highschoolers could run the plant. But even if we had a Chernobyl every year it would kill and effect less people than coal does each year from pollution and climate change alone.

[@plakor6133]

Well I am a committed lifelong greenie, and I came around to reality a couple years ago. Solar belongs on rooftops, not on thousands of acres of our (USA) public lands. The wholesale bulldozing, roadbuilding, power line building going on right now in our southwest wildlands is permanently catastrophic for wildlife, soils, native vegetation, scenic values. And these solar stripmine farms are not going to blunt global warming one little bit. The lithium mining is also negative, especially considering there's currently really no recycling for the spent batteries, which would eliminate at least some of the "need" for mining. I'd like to see the analysis of how many solar panels, over how many acres, it takes to match the sustained output of even a small nuclear power plant, and factor in the lifetimes and CO2 footprints of each.

[@griffithdavey2]

@@plakor6133 I mostly agree, I don't really think that solar really has much reason to be installed on an industrial scale when it doesn't really gain much from economy of scale. Compare that to nuclear which is entirely economy of scale and is the absolute safest form of energy we have available, even including the outlier headline making incidents which involved relatively ancient nuclear technology (I think they were entirely Gen 2 reactors, and we are now on Gen 4). But we should absolutely have solar on every rooftop. It's really ridiculous not to considering it is cost effective enough to pay for itself in less than half of its lifetime at the household scale and it will help reduce dependence on large power grids and commodity prices. If home sized nuclear reactors were feasible, I would absolutely have one, but I'm stuck with solar.

[@robertgutheridge9672]

Actually nuclear energy is a good option. Just not the Westinghouse design reactor of the past. We can design better reactor now and they should have multiple redundancies in the systems.

[@joesubel]

The stigma against using Nuclear energy is ridiculous tbh. Theres hundreds of nuclear warheads just sitting in the basments of powerful countries which could potentially be dismantled and used in energy production instead..

[@hoxton_hummingbird]

You know what happens when one of these blows up? It happens and it's not fun at all... Just think about Chernobyl or Fukushima

[@PanzerAce247]

You should look into Thorium reactors, those melt themselves shut when a meltdown occurs, and, if I remember correctly, they can function with lower grade nuclear fuel that the Fukushima and Chernobyl types cannot use. Not to mention that Fukushima could have been prevented with a bigger wave wall (which they advocated for, and one of those saved another plant in the path of the same tsunami), and the Chernobyl type had so many design flaws that it makes your grandmother's first knit sweater look like a masterpiece.

[@Marcus-ni6ip]

@@PanzerAce247 frfr

[@Andytlp]

@@hoxton_hummingbird oil killed billions.

[@0Leonx0]

@@hoxton_hummingbird and both had a avoidable reason why they melt down.

[@mandalorianmama]

I'm curious if you've covered the dangers of the lithium batteries in electric cars

[@JeffreyBenzodiazepines]

Which you would need if using any "carbon neutral" sources. But none of these shills will bring this up

[@neepsmcfly4176]

Old news. But he has also covered the latest in battery tech, which I'm sure is the question you're REALLY asking.

[@mandalorianmama]

​@@neepsmcfly4176no, that's not what I was asking... Over a year ago when I commented on this

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

​@@neepsmcfly4176what's that?

[@keepitreal2902]

What about the dangers of fossil fuels in cars? Many more of them have fires than EVs!

[@RiffHarvester]

"Hey, 42 here..." is what I hear every time...

[@MrMudbill]

I think that's the point since 42 is the answer to all life.

[@rcamarda390]

is the answer to the question from 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" : 'Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything'

[@Xsidon]

i hope he's not wearing a wig and doesn't have a bar code on the back of his head...

[@pk5489]

agent 47's good friend agent 42

[@GrandMasterFlan99]

Robert Camarda pop n n C no m LG be. Njvojovggco oh gg,g,c(,gc),gc(,c,g•]

[@skaruts]

*Solar power:* _"I'm only efficient when the sun shines!"_ *United Kingdom left the chat*

[@azrael7922]

Dont be so dramatic, UK didn't just "leave the chat", it was night time.... and got disconnected.......

[@skaruts]

@@azrael7922 Or maybe liverpool was playing manchester...

[@georgehartnagle2658]

no, it doesnt only work on sunny days, unless the clouds nin the UK make it look like night time there

[@ComicalSpy]

Wasn’t there a saying like, “The sun never sets on British Empire.”

[@adamabele785]

@@ComicalSpy The sun never sets a foot on Britain.

[@deathhog]

" . . . There is enough centrifugal force to maintain . . . " Ahem. REEEEEEEEEEEEEE Now that the screaming is out of the way, centrifugal force is *not* what keeps the turbines spinning. Nor is it centripetal force. Those forces act in the same plane of rotation as the turbine. What keeps the turbine spinning is the inertia. Angular Momentum.

[@altond511]

Huh?

[@elijahaitaok8624]

Tomato tomato

[@vladdracul7810]

Thank you. I was thinking the same thing. Was wondering if anyone else noticed that.

[@bricaaron3978]

Centrifugal "force" is actually a fictional force, isn't it?

[@perrymarshall8584]

Centripetal force is basically a force moving inwards, and centrifugal force is a force moving outwards, both exist.

[@Vexcenot]

I like how he has to specify that toxic is bad to humans like there is a healthy toxic

[@Earlybeggar]

😂

[@wilhelmsarasalo3546]

It is angular momentum, not centrifugal force that keeps the heavy turbine spinning a while.

[@ChilledfishStick]

What? Haven't you heard of the law of "conservation of centrifugal force"?

[@maartendj2724]

THANK YOU

[@11helicop]

Thank you! Was about to say the same

[@TheDeichi]

And naturally a "wind turbine" contains a turbine... just like the name says.

[@brokenpencil57]

@@TheDeichi Doesn't have the weight needed

[@thatoneneeko2131]

Somalia be like "you can't create carbon emissions when there is no power".

[@jackcohen4931]

*Venezuela

[@swiggedyswoner7315]

Nah it be liek: can’t produce co2 if everyone will die of famine

[@grimjowjaggerjak]

@@swiggedyswoner7315 Kids in africa could've eaten that C02

[@ZigZagHockey]

Really? Do you think burning wood (or dung) does not produce carbon dioxide - as well as destroying forests.

[@thatoneneeko2131]

@@ZigZagHockey this is ment to a joke comment plz leave any serious comment elsewhere.

[@briangarrow448]

There is no such thing as a free lunch. ALL types of energy production have a downside or negative effect. I have been building power plants since 1979. Nuclear, biomass, coal, oil, natural gas and hydroelectric. Shall I list off the negative effect of each? Humanity needs a mix of all types of energy production to continue civilization at near present levels. I find your argument against solar and wind disingenuous. We will have to build a mix of all types to meet our future needs.

[@Pantheragem]

Being forced to switch all at once to one type or the other, is not feasible, I don't know why that's so hard for people to understand. I agree with you, it's just like those who think everyone should be forced to drive electric cars. It would be disastrous. Just like most things in life, moderation is usually key.

[@Kinggrunt798]

Pantheragem I disagree on your opinion because adaptability is what separates the elite from the rest Fearing change is the only setback technology has as for this video I believe Solar and Nuclear fusion is the way to go His main points for named negatives of solar energy being storage is a battery issue (convert solar to hydrogen fuel) other then that he claims solar cause waste bit again another tech issue (he said because of cheap panels) The argument is reduce CO2 emission but he didn't mention the statistics at all about CO2 emission between each energy source Very biased video

[@heckingbamboozled8097]

@Jorge Carranza He did mention the CO2 emissions from production and very clearly stated that it's offset within months for wind, and a simple google search reveals that solar offsets it's CO2 production within a year or two. The video isn't biased for omitting a single detail.

[@Jcewazhere]

Thank you Brian.

[@merry8647]

We don't nee any fossil fuels. Besides, they'll fun out anyway.

[@onepoundofcheese8356]

My bio professor in college used to go on rants on how stupid we are for not using nuclear power because it's the best and most efficient.

[@tannerw14]

Nuclear power is Op over any other form of energy. I'm actually going to school right now for this.

[@fabiankehrer3645]

Not when i comes to peaks, as far as i know. For baseload they can be excellent. But Fluiride-Thorium Moltensalt would be awesome.

[@lit_for_20]

except that the waste produced is super dangerous and if we can't fully guarantee containment for a couple hundred/thousand years, we're playing with the entire planet for some electricity :^)

[@fabiankehrer3645]

@@lit_for_20 The dangerousness of the Waste depends on The fuel and the reactor as does the risk of meltdown. Current reactors are much more on the unsafe side depending waste.

[@fabiankehrer3645]

@@lit_for_20 The Safety of current reactors depends a lot of where they are build and if they have passiv safetymeasures that work without power.

[@makamaka1115]

Woaw, you're going to school ! You must be right then :)

[@LizTelgan]

I wish channels like this would cite their sources. I would love to read where this information was collected.

[@filthyshoggoth]

It's usually right out of his asshole. This dude has been misrepresenting facts in his videos for a decade.

[@der_der_da_war_da_ist7813]

@@filthyshoggoth I wouldn´t say it like this but basically yes.

[@jinnylover9158]

@@filthyshoggoth so you think solar power and wind power is she replacing nuclear power okay

[@chrisbova9686]

its pretty obvious that the disposal of used rods is eliminated from the stats... the y have been caught duping them in the ocean near japan.

[@LizTelgan]

@@chrisbova9686 which would honestly be quite the waste since rods can be recycled and used more.

[@andrewkvk1707]

Renewables are not the scam we fell for, the attack on nuclear by traditional energy sources was the scam we fell for that led to these less desirable alternatives.

[@cliffm6566]

Andrew KVK it’s all part of the same religion, wind solar good, nuclear and hydro bad. It’s totally counterintuitive that the very processes that effectively reduce emissions are banned😂. That’s why it has nothing to do with “science” much more to do with a new morality and a new religion.

[@BoB-Dobbs_leaning-left]

@kirk mcloren Chernobyl

[@timtim5020]

@@BoB-Dobbs_leaning-left Three Miles island oh boy we named the only three nuclear disasters all caused by human error and bad design that have happened in the millions of running hours hundreds of reactors have had around the globe. We just going to ignore there is literally a statistic in the video about how little nuclear kills people including said meltdown?

[@EvillBob]

@@timtim5020 But nuclear big scary. Sunshine and wind happy words that make feel safe. /s

[@dionjones6300]

If we're honest all of our options are bad. We'll need to make advancements in everything we can.

[@BuckwheatPlatypus]

We did not all fall for it, but there will be many who pretend they didn't.

[@dennisrichards7994]

Yeah I fell for it and haven't paid one electricity bill for years and the next car I buy will be a ev , geez I really got sucked in !!!

[@mksabourinable]

I live in Ontario. Our energy is made up of multiple sources, with nuclear power making up the biggest chunk of it, hydro being the next biggest, then the rest is split between solar, wind, and geothermal. Not a bad approach imo 🤷‍♂️

[@eddiem4638]

This is ideal. Having multiple energy sources is a good strategy for redundancy. Nuclear and hydro are my two favorite, and then a mixed bag of solar, wind, geo, and fossil should share a much smaller percentage.

[@PaulTheSkeptic]

No coal, no oil? But, where's the choking and coughing? And the black lung disease?

[@yo-no9879]

I live in Ontario too and can confirm.

[@livedandletdie]

sirati97 Uranium based nuclear reactors are profitable. Uranium-238 decays into thorium-234 which decays into Protactinium-234 which decays back into Uranium-234 which then decays into thorium-230 which decays into radium-226 and then into radon-222 and eventually it all decays into Lead-206 You can reuse the Uranium rods when they've become Thorium-230 which has a reasonably high half-life. Then you just need to store those rods let's say you get 20kg of rods then you need 15 years of storage before that 20kg becomes 99% lead-206 which is stable and non-radioactive.

[@Pac0Master]

I'm from Quebec, iirc 99.9% of our power is from Hydro

[@EcnalKcin]

As a man with Solar Panels on his roof, I have been a proponent for nuclear power for a long time, pretty much since I started to look into them. Also, Gen 4 reactors have a multistage burn process that essentially uses all but a very small portion of the original fuel completely. They do this by enriching spent fuel into another isotope then burning that and enriching it again and burning it. They could actually reduce the over all amount of nuclear waste that already exists by burning waste from earlier generation nuclear plants.

[@kissmyacidrocks]

good luck finding it without unearthing many many secret towns full of radiated bs such as my home town of SFV, cali.. we had the first meltdown (AND we had more than like 4-5 generators IN THE SAME ROOM) literally the first year after the manhattan project. btw sfv is literally where half of the town of HOLLYWOOD is.. radiated city of dreams

[@alexanderbrundin7620]

@@kissmyacidrocks lol nice troll

[@nameputhpong9041]

KiSSMYACiD you live in Street Fighter V? Cool, but a noob’s game. 💁🏽

[@kissmyacidrocks]

@@alexanderbrundin7620 I am not a conspiracy follower, as well as I am not trying to derail the topic. .I just meant that a lot of waste has been secretly disposed of insanely improperly.

[@kissmyacidrocks]

psmag.com/environment/50-years-after-nuclear-meltdown-3510 "For the next 20 years, it remained the only public notification about the accident at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory on a mountaintop in California's eastern Ventura County, on the border with the San Fernando Valley. In fact, from July 12 through July 26, 1959, an unknown amount of radioactive gases were intentionally vented to prevent the Sodium Reactor Experiment from overheating and exploding."

[@actionlv1066]

I guess it's time to take down those darn panels from roof and build a nuclear reactor in basement.

[@siegmundeurades5753]

This, but unironically

[@marcosanaya9540]

Make sure you have sufficient cooling, or you'll be making a lil' Hiroshima in your basement instead. LUL

[@peterfoley4533]

Maybe that is what happened in Russia at the Cruse weapon lauch.... It was actually Putin's basement reactor energy game changer, over achieving...

[@eduardom3209]

@@marcosanaya9540 use the new Corsair water-cooler that totally will be enough for 90000 wats of heat

[@brucejones2354]

Hey, I'm up for that!

[@scotthubinger5914]

Problem is declining quality of life and sustainability. Subsidies for green energy are insane. Wind is some like 40+ dollars per mega watt hour, solar is over 100 compared to fossil fuels and nuclear both being under 10. This is definitely part of the reason the quality of life in the west has been going down as we've been throwing money away for decades now. At some point the subsidies will end and society will bear the burden of the full cost instead of a higher debt number.

[@srivastavashivam949]

I am from India and I can attest to this. This weekend I'm going on a thorium hunting trip for my homemade thorium reactor.

[@maxferenc5544]

respect

[@mim8312]

LOL. I sure hope that the wonderful promises of the Thorium nuclear reactor promoters bear out. I am not sure.

[@danielsiegel8619]

If I threw in an extra shovel, would you bring me back some also? 😃 😊

[@HeySenthil]

Make sure you don't kill any birds in the process.

[@medved4030]

How do you find the time from all those phone call you have to make every day?

[@manuelcheeser8935]

As an energy engineer I disagree with some things, but that's to be expected. However, I still don't really understand why nuclear has such a bad reputation and why everyone seemingly wants to abandan it..

[@noahproctor4120]

Finding somewhere to put waste

[@karsten3360]

Hopefully they'll find a way to be more efficient with the rods and get more use out of them

[@stauffap]

I don't want to abondon it. The waste is a problem obviously and in many countries it's actually more expensive than many renewable energies. What i have a problem with is when people try to suggest that global warming can be stopped with nuclear energy. Currently nuclear energy is about 5 percent of the global primary energy and according to an MIT study we'll run out of fuel in about 160 years max. (but lets just be generous and say 200 years). If we wanted to replace all fossil fuels with nuclear energy we'd have to increase the rate of use about 20 times. That would mean that we'd run out of fuel in less than 10 years. But sure, nuclear energy can help. The science is pretty clear that we need almost all kinds of energy we can get if we want to get rid of fossil fuels and achieve carbon neutrality. Without wind and solar we obviously can't do it, but we also need biomass, geothermal, hydropower, tidal energy and wave energy. The thing that most people forget about nuclear energy is that it has the same problem that wind and solar has. It's not able to meet the current energy demand curve, since the curve is fluctuating daily and the nuclear power plant can't react that quickly. So with nuclear energy you'll either need energy storage or other energy sources to fill the gaps in regards to the current energy demand. This rarely gets mentioned and it's a big problem when comparing the EROI of different energy sources. Often when calculating the EROI of renewables imagine that this energy source has to provide all of the energy for the whole grid (which then requires storage, which introduces new losses), but when it comes to convential energy sources they often forget to do this, which makes the EROI not comparable. You can only compare EROI's when the same strict conditions have been applied to different energy sources. The variability issue of renewable energy sources has been solved by the way. There are many solution to this (filling the gaps with dispatchable renewable energiy sources, curtailement, smart grid, demand management, energy storage, power-to-X etc.). So we can get to 100 percent renewables.

[@noahproctor4120]

@Nicholas Marashio Chernobyl melted down after doing a capacity test on a shift full of rookies. Fukushima was built on a fault line next to the shore. Three mile island had no fatalities or lasting effects that I know of. Other than that nuclear energy has a pretty solid track record in terms of safety. The main issues are obtaining fuel and disposing of it.

[@David_Baxendale]

I've always thought it came down to investment (for all energy production forms) and safety (for nuclear). Maybe an form can be made very efficient if you invest enough in it, but with nuclear it had safety problems that could have been solved with enough investment, but it has to be safe in the first place. Who knows, maybe in the future they will have the problems sorted out but even then, they will still have to deal with the oil/coal lobby.

[@DunnsDayDash]

He totally overlooked the fact that his mustache can power an entire country.

[@fridgemagnet9831]

How many birds die by crashing into it.

[@pietersteenkamp5241]

It could also bring him to power in it. :)

[@kulturfreund6631]

Some folks in Germany nowadays call mustaches >Popelbremse< (bogey brake/impediment).

[@LucasVe208]

Stache Power!!!!!!

[@Aggressor-vl5nn]

😂😂😂

[@mojobag01]

I was in the energy sector 90s/00s and it was patently clear that green was a scam. Best we could do was reduce spinning reserve and price people out of wastefulness.

[@Ali107]

Renewable energy: Causes harm Us Humans: You have become the very thing you swore to destroy.

[@Master_Therion]

Nuclear energy: Unlimited power!!!

[@Minecraftiano1204]

Nuclear energy when humans realize it's pros outweighs its cons: "You couldn't live with your own failure, where did that bring you? Back to me"

[@Loltroll8]

MalKarma04 i love these environment memes

[@Ceshua]

Winter is coming

[@starwarfan8342]

Renewable energy: Don't lecture me human! I see through the lies of the Nukes!

[@Duncan2201]

Nuclear energy is a bit like flying via a commercial airline. Statistically, it is incredibly safe, but if it goes wrong, it goes very wrong. The difference between them is public perception.

[@guesswho2232]

nice analogy! also... @simpsons Bart what...?

[@UncleKennysPlace]

Every nuclear disaster in history (you can include the two bombs if you wish) hasn't killed nearly as many as have died from coal mining/transport/burning. Go nukes!

[@Supersly666]

Actually commercial airline statistics are a bit more twisted, just a tad though. :P I'ts true there is less chance of getting into a plane crash if you count the amount of miles traveled per person (which is how the airline industry sold it to the public). But one airplane carries many more people than a mere car used in daily commute and a plane makes many more miles in one trip than most car trips. For example, lets consider an intercontinental plane trip of 2000 miles with 500 passengers, that's 500 x 2000 = 1 million miles combined. How many car trips would it take you to achieve that kind of millage? Possibly a lifetime with thousands of trips, yet that's just one intercontinental plane trip. That's how the statistics are misleading in the case of the airline industry, they compare the miles travelled and multiply this by the amount of passangers. To top that off, most plane crashes are fatal, but many car crashes are not. If the statistics would compare chance of fatality per trip, ground vehicles vs air, the result would not only be a true representative of the risk involved, but they would be very very scary as well. Ps. Sorry, I'm an analyst, it's my job to know statistics, safe travels everyone!

[@Cenzurat]

@simpsons Bart dude, read up on english grammar, you need it.

[@FastFink]

As a nuclear engineer you couldn't be more wrong. There has only been 1 real nuclear disaster that has gone "very wrong" and had serious environmental impact and it was Chernobyl. Fukashima and three mile island had very little environmental impact and even less loss of human life. Plus, the reactors that are being built and designed today have an enormous amount of what we call passive safety. This means that no matter what happens (earthquake, tsunami, terrorism, etc.) the reactor will be able to shut down passively and is "walk-away safe". Nuclear energy is the only real solution as hydro has limitations and solar/wind are such low return (not to mention the consequences mentioned in the video!). Sadly, the public is not well informed on this as nuclear energy is not covered in-depth during preliminary schools nor by government funded education programs :/

[@jimhailey5481]

Fear sells far more easily than nuclear energy.

[@KDZ_Prime]

Introducing... Monsters Incorporated Go and scare your child!

[@electronresonator8882]

no need for nuclear bullshit, simply raise the tax, you can scare so many people

[@stephenodell9688]

Scare people and they will do the stupidest things. Just look at Germany in the 1930's.

[@Bizzon666]

@@skypilotace Even with all the accidents nuclear power kills far less people than other energy sources per MWh.

[@dudleypaints]

@@Bizzon666 no facts here,

[@chartreusecircle1546]

Not all of us, Forty-Two. I wrote a paper in high school 15 years ago about how “green energy” was a total scam and how we should be pursuing nuclear. My science teacher became apoplectic with rage and launched into a rant about how humans are killing the planet and I wasn’t taking climate change seriously enough. Lol

[@unknown_number475]

Wow! Good for you.

[@Styxswimmer]

I did the same except in college. One of my main points is that with fossil fuels or nuclear, you have total control over every stage of the process. With green energy, you don't. You can't get solar energy at night. You can't make the wind blow faster, or at all. Since you lose control over a major step in the process, that makes green energy inferior by default.

[@LoneDovah]

"Renewable Energy is a scam" here before a title change.

[@nanay400]

Yeah I remember the title was Green Energy is blah blah something like that

[@voidkampff7946]

Old title: How 'Green' Energy Will Destroy the Planet - So new title is better

[@Lord_Reeves]

hes british so its 4am where he is

[@Lord_Reeves]

@Wade Haden Reality is a scam

[@k_tess]

@@Lord_Reeves Your face is a scam

[@visiblehuman3705]

“Countries such as Africa” ahh yes... Africa, my favorite country

[@fridgemagnet9831]

South Africa, central African Republic,.

[@ionageman]

Every culture has been destroyed by European expansion .

[@fridgemagnet9831]

@@ionageman people change, take the good bits from other cultures and make it their own.

[@fridgemagnet9831]

@@ionageman that's a simplistic view of the world.

[@visiblehuman3705]

@@ionageman a lot of them have been changed by it (: whether that is for worse or for better we cannot know!

[@l.av.h7812]

Atomic energy is the answer to save the earth

[@royisdabest]

it depends how you look at it

[@Sickboyfriend]

Which atomic process? Fission or fusion?

[@TheSalami]

Nuclear energy is the safest and actually most efficient

[@lumin9572]

@@TheSalami yea when we master nuclear fusion it could solve energy crisis.

[@haruhisuzumiya6650]

@@TheSalami meltdowns caused by natural disasters are the greatest threat

[@jrnmadsen2710]

The 40-50% windfarm energy delivery in Germany is "magic with numbers". A very clever way of manipulation with numbers too. If the question is "how much electricity does the windfarms produce, when it is needed"? The answer is 10%. But,- the windfarms also produce energy when it's not needed, then Germany exports the electricity. Example,- asks Denmark to shut down their windfarms - and pays very well. Then, when Germany needs electricity, they import it, and makes it "even". Imports a lot of electricity from French nuclear production. To stabilize Germany's electricity grid, they now burn lignite. 10.000 tonnes - each hour. These lignite plants has to run 24/7 as they take more than 24 hours to start up. They deliver the "baseline". But their pollution is ignored in the total calculations. Countries need energy reliability. Delivery of energy when needed. Solar and wind can't deliver this.

[@cerebros3671]

He's slowly becoming a 1950s dad. Let him continue.

[@garetclaborn]

reminds me of when felix was just a young'un reviewing memes in the olden days

his argumentation is sound though. Being reflexively dismissive to anyone who highlights the problems with renewables isn't helpful to building solutions.

[@beetle__bug]

@Celtic Revival / Adfywiad Celtaidd Depending on where you live, the millitary also leeches a ton off your taxes. I don't think you should use the decommission cost excuse against something that could be a potential solution

[@wizdabaws2793]

@Celtic Revival / Adfywiad Celtaidd In comparison to the constant maintenance throughout the entire lifespan of wind turbines, hydroelectric, and solar energy, it's likely to have a lower overall cost.

[@josephisrael8959]

@Celtic Revival / Adfywiad Celtaidd What other viable alternatives are there?

[@konrad3]

2:20 Do you know what kills much more birds than wind turbines? WINDOWS! If you really want to prevent bird kills you should ban windows on all buildings.

[@tweschke3]

oh, and what about Glyphosate killing even more birds

[@wollew]

I have linux

[@neoncat6820]

@@wollew took me a second to get this, lmfao

[@RainingArtillery]

flying city rats are not exactly the types of birds the ecosystem depends on.

[@Nikkeftw]

Googles says: Windmills kill up to 500.000 birds per year in the US. Wild cats kill 2.400.000.000. Windows 1.000.000.000.

[@Snookers_]

One of your clips of a protest showed a lady with a sign that said "the laws of physics don't negotiate." How ironic.

[@mobashshirkareem976]

Well... Technically it didn't. The thing is we negotiated a worse deal just because we wanted to vaporize Moscow.

[@bbbf09]

I have solar panels and home store battery . Very happy - Saved a fortune - and should pay for itself inside of 3 years. . I am only partially dependent still on grid during grey days in mid- winter. If you lived in sunnier climes you could be entirely energy independent. So not such a scam.

[@abrahamedelstein4806]

I once asked an electrical engineer if he knew anyone in the field who was against nuclear power and after thinking for a brief second he gave a very sharp, "No!".

[@007floppyboy]

You asked the wrong guy. Billions are spent on de-commissioning a nuclear plant.

[@abrahamedelstein4806]

@@007floppyboy An Electrical Engineer is the wrong guy? Who should I ask? A politician? An environmental activist? So yeah, the people who build and operate the grid seem to think that Nuclear power is pretty damn good and that decommissioning reactors left and right is a mistake, you just have to look to Europe at this very moment to see why. If it was up to Electrical Engineers, the grid would have a 100% nuclear capacity with everything else being supplemental. People who are against Nuclear power are the first ones that should be cut off the grid.

[@007floppyboy]

@@abrahamedelstein4806 A nuclear reactor has a certain life span, not much you can do once the core graphite starts crumbling. Best you do a bit of home work. I am a Chartered electrical engineer, I work on these things.

[@abrahamedelstein4806]

@@007floppyboy I work in the field myself, not as an engineer but I'm not a layman when it comes to these things either. I'm assuming you're British since I'm not aware of any other country that uses graphite moderated reactors on a large scale other than Russia, so you're probably more well versed in the limitations of such reactors than me. With PWR-units your main concern is the integrity of the pressure vessel but basically everything else can be upgraded and maintained with more or less pain. But my concern isn't pushing 40 year old reactors beyond their expiration date, my concern is that we should have been building new ones for the past two decades.

[@007floppyboy]

@@abrahamedelstein4806 your right, we havnt built new ones. And the reason is, soon as we found out they have a life expectancy and then the cost of de-commissioning, it takes the flavour away. What we should have been doing is building more wind turbines, then use the extra they generate to produce hydrogen. What we all have now is disconnected streams of power.

[@PHILMKD95]

Meanwhile in Germany, is decommissioning it's Nuclear Power Plants and restarting it's coal power plants.

[@olivierdols5556]

they're evolving, only backwards

[@PJSM94]

They're filling the nuclear void with natural gas. It's incredibly strange. The mental gymnastics behind this make no sense.

[@hosmerhomeboy]

You know what is even worse? They are burning wood pellets made from american forests and calling it "biofuel". Definitely less clean than even lignite.

[@GFrostGP]

Coal is so shutdown, new Houses need to produed a certain amount to be approved

[@IamVideolook]

Also meanwhile, in Sweden, we pat our selves on the back when we shutdown our nuclear plants and instead import the lost power from Coal plants in Germany.

[@mrguy7582]

Edit: Read the whole fucking thing before you make a comment getting triggered. Studying a masters in Electrical Engineering and taking a paper on renewable energy (I understand this does NOT mean I'm an expert) but my opinion is that renewables aren't a scam, they're just not developed enough to take the load we produce. As an engineer, scientist or physicist in this field your goal is to study and create solutions for our load problem. The bad part is when politicians and greedy corporations start pushing this agenda onto normal people like ourselves and guilt us into trying to save the world while they still continue their greed. THAT is where the issue lies. Nobody really denies it'd be better if we could produce an energy method from sunrays or wind compared to spending so much money digging up these fossil fuels, but we need to be honest. Renewables haven't developed very much since its inception in terms of energy generation, the mediums and device in which the energy travels HAS improved but the concept is still the same (for example Solar: using sun rays to excite particles to create electron holes and create current). This doesn't mean that we WON'T improve it, it just means that it's pretty hard to. This topic is quite complicated and it's not a matter of "ITS A SCAM" or "ITS GONNA SAVE THE WORLD" looking at it objectively it's just another avenue we're continuing to explore. My opinion is that renewables still suck compared to nuclear BUT so did the automobile until we worked at it and eventually got F1 cars, lambos etc. The politics becomes important when we want to decide how much we are willing to spend on this technology, but sadly the politics have turned into "YOU BETTER BELIEVE IN SOLAR OR ELSE UR A SCIENCE DENIER", which is the best way to cause a pushback such as this video.

[@noradseven]

Yeah I wanted to like this video but I feel it's still missing a good bit of the issues. Part of the problem from I see it also as a EE, is that people tend to look at the hard stats alot of how much power can X produce for Y cost and room, then fail to take into account alot of soft issues, such as storing and moving power and being able to control when the power comes in if your lucky a cloudy day or winter will get mentioned but that's about it. Batteries in theory solve this but if you want to talk about eco disaster start there especially if you need tons of them and the amount you need goes up expodentially the higher % renewables are of your market. People also don't realize I think that you must discharge the excess power you do get somehow you cannot allow too much power to charge on a line and discharging huge amounts of power in the case of vast overproduction can be an issue as well. One thing I find a bit interesting is that nuclear and green energy are at slight odds with each other you could say. Because one of the big issues of nuclear power is that it's not very good for peaking because it takes alot of planning and time to ramp up and down the power generation of a nuclear plant without causing possible damage and increased maintence costs, while fossil fuels tend to be really fast at controlling this. On the flip side solar and wind have basically no control over this and just generate what they generate, which means they in some ways need even more fossil fuel plants available if not in use to be able to handle large droughts in power. Ones that nuclear plants generally can't react to fast enough.

[@whocares3201]

So basicly what you just said is, it is a scam, just it might once not be one. Because noone is denying that it could be optimal at some point. The scam is not science itself, it is the political abduction of science and its use to fill pockets of special interests and further specific agendas as it is.

[@rodrozil6544]

True. I feel the video is funded by oil company

[@eriksab1609]

Yeah I agree, politician suhing something they don't undertstand is the worst.

[@danlorett2184]

No, it's mostly a scam, and here's why: IF YOU CAN'T SCHEDULE IT, IT DOESN'T MATTER. That is the iron rule of the grid. I don't care if I can get some more power if it happens to be extra windy, because I already had to plan out and schedule a bunch of ACTUAL power generation to cover those projected energy needs anyways. If you can't schedule it (meaning the power is available to be generated reliably at a specified time) it's literal window dressing - just there to look good. And that is the biggest problem with wind and solar: you can't schedule it. All power has to be generated and delivered AS NEEDED simultaneously. We don't store power on the grid in quantity because literally it's an impossibility economically speaking. Batteries are far too costly and inefficient, we can small advantage of things like off-peak hours pumping water back up into reservoirs above hydroelectric dams, but there's nothing else. Geothermal, nuclear, hydroelectric - if you want less CO2 emissions these are the only real workable options. Hydroelectric is a problem because environmentalists have spent the last 50+ years trying to shut them down or prevent new ones from being built. Geothermal works great, but is only usable in very specific locations. Nuclear works great, is safe, and we know we can use it for almost all base generation (though surge generation will likely still have to be fossil fuels, we can at least use NG).

[@AlexAnder-rv1gu]

I'm surprised such a large youtuber has been willing to speak such truths.

[@CW-nj2fn]

Germany really dropped the ball and I couldn't say why. Anyone paying attention had known for years that their decommissioning of nuclear plants was bad for their independence and carbon footprint. No idea how they made a mistake so obvious and easily avoidable (although we have recent parallels in the US).

[@StarSwarm.]

No idea? Yeah ummm that’s what happens when you let the left do something. 100% of the time. Basically when feelings and virtue signalling trump science and facts, you end up with a mess like Germany. And you’re right… it’s exactly the same path the US is on right now.

[@CW-nj2fn]

@@StarSwarm. I was referring to the idiot trump as the obvious mistake that we still made. Something tells me I lost you there.

[@Itried20takennames]

I think it is pretty understandable….most people agree nuclear power is a decent choice (all have advantages, disadvantages like everything else in life), but almost no one wants in their town.

[@demoniack81]

@@Itried20takennames I am 100% convinced that if we just paid people living close to a power plant a couple hundred € a month for it you'd have people _fighting_ to have one in their town.

[@derfalschejunge]

Living in Germany, I'd say people do not look further into stuff. They hear about climate change, hear about the proposed solution, think the problem's getting solved and get back to think of something else. Yes, they do realize their electricity bills have gone up and up, but what doesn't these days. The state is known to be a money hungry monster anyway. And if it helps the planet, it will make you a good person to take part in it. And you may be able to imagine how much Germans want to be the good guys for once. Especially considering that most people in Germany only hear about their image from within the country. They don't get to know a lot of people in other countries even if they are travelling to realize that all in all our image in most countries isn't nearly as bad as our own view on ourselves.

[@ReveredWizardBob]

I installed solar panels while I was living Germany and before long I was able to actually sell the excess energy I was making off of them. They paid themselves back in a matter of just over a half year and I never had to worry about going without hot water. They didn't break down in the 14 years I lived there. If they did break down, there were services to get it removed, fixed or recycled. Not sure how that's classed as a scam.

[@ionut-cristianratoi7692]

Even though this video is most likely a bit exaggerated. It does have a valid point regarding the CO2 indirect emissions of renewable. Because solar and wind are unreliable, as they don't always produce energy, an alternative is required. And as the easiest to adjust alternative is thermal (coal/gas), it does increase the total amount of CO2 produced compared to a nuclear based energy source (the comparison between Germany and France).

[@slaaneshnurgle3720]

because the state invested a shitload of money to make them attractive. Today buying some isn't worth it

[@0sba]

Recycled? Are you sure about that lol?

[@dmitrius22]

When youll be have to take it off Try to find where it goes and what is going to happen after Yoll understand that you put your money in killing people and contaminated land

[@bailarot2566]

He said WELL made solar panels last 20 - 25 years

[@justlaurenslife4736]

I got 2 renewable energy ads while watching this that I'd never seen before. 😂

[@claycassin8437]

Thank God I don't get any ads on KZbin...haven't for years now, thanks to using the right extensions(hint- they are not "ad blockers")

[@reggie8370]

Nancy Pelosi and the deep state liberal cabal of Satan worshippers

[@PowerofRock24]

Nuclear power is absolutely the best form of energy and we should be building more reactors. But as for wind and solar, it would make sense to install solar arrays and wind turbines on the roofs of buildings instead of destroying the countryside. There are huge amount of unused space right above our heads.

[@riekotz]

Finally someone speaks truth about nuclear energy and i see i lot of dislike, people and thier misguided egos.

[@mrrexychomp9829]

We need to go nuclear if we want to save the planet

[@pollutance]

Amen!

[@Wolfang319]

Agreed, I belive he has his head screwed on right.

[@Zireael83]

yeah, as a german, i´m glad to see that other countries aren´t as stupid as we are. and i´m glad to see that the majority of the viewers of this video are pro-nuclar too :) it´s the only chance for our planet

[@ski6712]

they just have to use a good way of mining the needed minerals so that those miners do not get exposed too much to the radioactive rock and expire early in life as i knew one of them cancer got him and also degenerative disease problems involving bone and muscle. now they have robotic mining machines controlled from an office above ground. the renewable energy industry will bankrupt the planet and kill so many birds extinction is inevitable.aka: Passenger Pigeon , Buffalo / the best solution is a give and take method part renewables and traditional energy use until the day comes where it all blends seamlessly and just works. there is way to many polarized opinions in this matter with that we will never make it and will be doomed to expire in a hydrogen bomb wasteland. aka: terminator. also ice ages play the biggest role in how much the world will warm up as of now we are in the interglacial phase of the quaternary ice age where the permafrost and glaciers will melt away until there are none and the sea level will go back up to its old level as it dropped 120 meters during the last glacial maximum when there was well over a mile of ice on top of most of north america . mother nature knows best.

[@thecitrine1675]

The Stalin stache is coming along nicely

[@rossadew4033]

THEY sure ARE

[@dezenterrier]

the funny think is that is 0:14 there is image of Warsow and it's famous Palace of Culture and Science originally was named as Joseph Stalin’s Palace of Culture and Science.

[@HuntSmacker]

It's not great, not terrible.

[@lehampton1]

Nyet Comrade.

[@madcockney]

The trouble is it makes you look at his teeth instead of his face and mouth.

[@EMAngel2718]

"I'm not trying to disparage renewables" *looks at title*

[@justanotherdayinthelife9841]

Yeah this rings of a special interest hitpiece.

[@bigbirdmusic8199]

@@justanotherdayinthelife9841 as if renewable energy doesnt have enough special interests...

[@justanotherdayinthelife9841]

@@bigbirdmusic8199 it literally does not have enough special interests when Big Oil etc can deive an entire nation i to ignorance for the sake of profits instead of using those funds to develop energy sources that are renewable and safe that are not vulnerable to forcing us into overseas wars. Seems far more cost effective, yet somehow it never happens...probably because there isnt enough special interests behind renewables and instead its all aligned behind propaganda hit pieces like this one, framing shit in such a misleading and dishonest way using real facts and stats.

[@justanotherdayinthelife9841]

@Max Schultz Big Oil Coal and Nuclear have 1 thing in common, getting preferential treatment over renewable energy sources. You ahve to be ridiculous to not understand or see that. As for Greta Thunbergs "handlers", which I assume you meant parents, has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all, the family is purely just climate change activists who want a better future for us all. No big conspiracy there. Beyond that, why didnt she speak up against nuclear power? Probably because it isnt the biggest threat as of right now, even with Fukushima. Not sure you had a point here, also the aforementioned has nothing to do with hypocrisy and you'd be hard stretched to make that point because there really isn't any evidence to exhibit such claims.

[@David_Baxendale]

If you look thorough his videos you'll see this isn't an impartial science channel.. He's also selling a book now, is that mentioned in the video?

[@jeremiahbrunkala]

Wind Turbines use the same strategy to reduce CO2 as Genghis Khan. Though instead of the victum being humans, wind focuses on the kulling of birds.

[@emiliorodriguez61]

A 2012 study found that wind projects kill 0.269 birds per gigawatt-hour of electricity produced, compared to 5.18 birds killed per gigawatt-hour of electricity from fossil fuel projects. this is from MIT climate portal. do not believe this crap do your own research. I could not watch the rest of the video but you can expect more of the same.

[@arthurdinucci]

Not a lot of people will get that reference - I did because I watched his video yesterday - great stuff.

[@mikebronicki8264]

Wind turbines kill fewer birds than guns kill people. Just saying.

[@tiavor]

* screams with german energy bill * you should have showed them the pictures of how the Germans dispose their nuclear waste in old salt mines

[@LibertyDino]

Mostly because recycled uranium is not allowed by the great German government of "we want you to pay us for allowing you to breath if we only push this agenda a little further." Yes your co2 tax actually calculates the co2 emission of workers so you have a tax on breathing.

[@cullenkelley4828]

@@LibertyDino YIKES

[@burner2097]

It's also important to note that since Germany can't produce enough energy with bird blenders and solar sponges, they import a lot of energy from France, which is nuclear power. So the German people still use quite a bit of nuclear power, they just have to pay a mark up since it's imported. And since Germany and France are so close, the catastrophic failure of a French plant supplying Germany with energy would most likely pollute Germany anyway, so there is literally no upside to what they're doing.

[@FWAKWAKKA]

@@LibertyDino are you surprised? this is what comes of capitalism. a system of money, where theres //never// enough money. weve got the resources, the manpower, the knowledge. what we dont have is the desire, the understanding, or the compassion. money facilitates this and societal stratification maintains it.

[@FWAKWAKKA]

@Prairiedoggen wow you look like a fucking moron. the CIA even disagrees with you. soviet citizens ate better than US citizens. the gulags had pay in food, and if you exceeded quotas, you were given an extra day off your sentence. infact, the gulag population stay from 1.5-2 million people at most at any given time, and every year, around a quarter of the prisoners were usually being released. because they were just prisons. you should do more research on even basic things. www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00926A003300030028-4.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0qq5-ssw3jXHpRZMK4nzW3s4AHzcnTBKoLtlUYEdjwVD0aEY4wRIb4woM home.ku.edu.tr/~mbaker/cshs522/GettyNumbers.pdf the gulags were just prisons you fucking psychopath. venezuela and bernie sanders both, are not socialists, despite what they call themselves. they both support and use capitalism. sanders doesnt want a revolution to fight against capitalism. he wants a social democracy where you get welfare and you take your wage like a good little bitch boy.

[@californianbean2977]

I leave for a couple of months and come back to this man having a 70s mustache

[@erikfinnegan]

Add to this that his vids become more and more about conspiracy theory and populism supporting right wing misinformation.

[@aidanpuntes3837]

😂😂😂

[@Sam-ko8mt]

@laser325 I don't know about his other videos, but he adequaetely supported his points within this video and named both the positives and the negatives of each energy type along with what he thanks would be the most sensible path to take. Would you consider that a "right wing troll"? Or "right wing misinformation". How about all the "left wing misinformation" then? We couldn't feed ourselves and would destroy the ecosystem by changing 25% of our land into wind/solar farms, as stated in the video - it's unsustainable. Never heard a pro-renewable energy politician talk about that?

[@andres983265]

That’s not a 70s porn mustache, that’s an 1850s British imperialism mustache.

[@mcearl8073]

Sam 942 I know, the second he says something they don’t agree with he’s suddenly a “right wing propagandist”. I’m guessing he’s a racist too according to them. The amount of left wing misinformation coming out of the media is honestly staggering and they never provide sources or reliable data and when they are called out on it it just gets swept under the rug and most of the people watching don’t even have a problem with it because they are blinded by hatred of DJT, and if and when an actual liberal comes out and stands up for the truth then they are automatically called Alt right or something g of that nature and the rest of them just disown them and quit watching them. The whole Trump derangement syndrome is a very real thing I’m finding. It’s going to be in history books in the future where 1/3rd of the worlds population went batshit crazy because a guy with orange hair became president of the USA.

[@matains88]

fear of nuclear power is same as fear of flight which is actually the safest form of transportation.

[@williamfreeman3331]

However, when something does go wrong everybody's fucked.

[@JFi96]

I've had a strong fear of flights since I was young. Some day soon I will be taking my first flight .

[@MrHans818]

@@williamfreeman3331 Your right. I live in Baltimore and my family lives n York county Pa now. If you are old enough to remember back in 79 and Three Mile Island mishap. Thank goodness they contained it. My former son in law remembered it well when they evacuated half of the county. If you know your geography Baltimore is about 60 mile away from the plant. Thank goodness there getting ready if not already closing it down. I guess he forgets Japan 2011 earthquake / Tsunami and that disaster. with there power plant. They will never be able to use that area again. Then you had the mother of all nuclear Disasters. Chernobyl. If people get a chance to see the HBO Chernobyl. Makes you think. They will never tell you how many people really died because of the aftermath. But that's what the communists do keep you from knowing the truth.

[@carlosesteban5601]

It's not only about being safe where do you put all the radioactive waste?

[@JFi96]

@@carlosesteban5601 That waste is generally inactive, but it is still dangerous yes, It's supposed to be stored deep underground in protective chambers but some governments, so far, have done a poor job of regulating this.

[@danpendergrass7762]

I live in West Texas which is rich in wind farms, they are installed among the agricultural plots. It is normal to see wind turbines erected and operating in the middle of cotton, corn, grain and hay fields. I disagree that it destroys the land it is erected on....

[@darmy9548]

I actually heard somebody thought windmills help cool the planet down like big fans 😅

[@Andreatellsstories65c]

And I heard someone thinks windmills make bird species extinct

[@billygreen9915]

They harm the ego system by changing it much like city's push humidity away creating more rain fall in other places

[@bjorneriksson6480]

Well, ridiculous as it seems the idea is interesting. The opposite is of course true. Windmills heat up the local climate around them.

[@lukefisher7176]

Fans don't even really make things cooler.

[@XxLavedogxX]

@@billygreen9915 well if earth didn't have such a big ego we wouldn't need to cut it down

[@emelerbas2278]

"Over a million bats are killed by wind turbine blades" People of living in 2020: -Well, thanks!!

[@101m4n]

2020: Revenge of the bat

[@jacquelynnkresman4558]

bats are important for insect control.

[@cameraredeye3115]

@@jacquelynnkresman4558 Exactly. When people eat stuff they ain't supposed to, like bats, they get a coronavirus as punishment. It's unfortunate that China, instead of stamping out this mess immediately, decided to let it spread all over the world...

[@beamis86]

Bats are living creatures who want to keep living, just like you.

[@slammerlo510]

Bats eat millions of flying insect not friendly Like mosquitoes 🤠 So they got their work cut out for them Bats digest human blood and some eat bat soup 🍲 Now eating bats that suck on sick humans is not very nice What you think? Do you like bat soup Emel?

[@jacobcooper4760]

It’d be great if he put his sources down below. Can’t trust anyone today

[@g07denslicer]

Sure, use Google. It’s still 42’s responsibility to put his sources.

[@jackabm69]

thoughty2 is trustable but i agree he should have them available

[@xxCrimsonSpiritxx]

@@jackabm69 i dont know how i feel about that lately

[@jackabm69]

@@xxCrimsonSpiritxx explain

[@CosmicPlayR]

For the least deadliest energy source I can provide something: ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

[@utahraptor700]

Something funny is that my city has some wind turbines. Situated at the mouth of a canyon, a ton of wind often blows through. Great, right? Well, not really. For whatever reason, at times with a massive amount wind they just aren't spinning. Might be for safety reasons, but it just baffles me how they aren't even on at what seems to be the best time for it. Either that, or only a few of them are on.

[@tureytayno3154]

Sounds like human mismanagement, to me, Utahraptor.

[@Meyour67120]

Energy is a complicated topic so I advice everyone in the comment section to stay humble in their conviction. If you want to debate seriously, use math and statistics. Otherwise it's only a waste of time.

[@tonikotinurmi9012]

I'm afraid it's impossible in youtube. Anyhow, a 8 year old article in phys.org named "Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy" gives some nice links even when it's old, in large issues like this there is no fast answer. I hope (for future generations sake) ITER works beyond expectations and we'll be able to capture carbon-compounds even from air cheaply, though it seems unlikely.

[@TheSambap]

Tour Guide I’ve been going tru the comments, you are the first person with common sense.

[@faustin289]

I wouldn't believe in those statistics even if you provide them....I only believe in statistics I faked myself.

[@ianb9028]

@БДЯЄTH 2 + 2 = 5 for small values of 5 or large values of 2...

[@HipHopPanda1208]

Hey mate, mind attaching your sources in the description instead of your equipment spec list? Cheers

[@jbstepchild]

I felt the same way about this subject as I didn't find much of what he said to be factual some of it more than internet schpeel but most was just spam

[@Brohoyoslo]

*Very underated comment*

[@Azakadune]

do your own research, I believe him, I heard the same crap from multiple sources, solar and wind SUCK on cost to performance.

[@Brohoyoslo]

@@Azakadune I've heard varying things from multiple sources. If you want to make an educational or informative video, whether right or wrong, you should at least back your claims by some of the sources you've received your information from.

[@restingspagetti]

exactly what i was thinking

[@randomx4289]

maybe you should have titled the video "Nuclear vs Renewables"

[@HK.on.YouTube]

For some reason, it feels like he's biased.

[@HK.on.YouTube]

@Stefano Dawg Mate You're taking this to the extreme tho. 2 types of Nuclear power, From fission and from Fusion. Uranium is used in fission, The Sun works by Fusion, they are trying to make Fusion work but without billions in funding and Millions doing research, it is always 10 years away. Fission on the other hand can be extremely useful and not used to make warhead, IF DONE RIGHT. Best example is the Thorium reactor he talked about, the LFTR. He had a few points about nuclear being helpful but he talked like solar & wind are useless and will NEVER get better in our lifetime. That's what felt wrong for me.

[@jacobremillard]

Stefano Dawg Nuclear energy is extremely safe. The sun uses nuclear energy, and without it, we would be dead. Nuclear Fusion is extremely safe, and it could save our planet.

[@mcearl8073]

Stefano Dawg that’s because you don’t base your views on any facts or anything, just your feewings and opinions, probably after watching Chernobyl videos. It’s literally just steam power, just like the old fashioned plants, the difference is the heating source and there are safeguards to make sure there would never be another meltdown like Chernobyl. If they’d have called nuclear power something else, something that wasn’t as close to sounding like a nuclear bomb, then the entire world would be ran on nuclear today. It just had far too many negative connotations, especially during the Cold War era that no one wanted nuclear anything.

[@RmnGnzlz]

Humayan Kabir Tends to happen when one choice is more logical than the other. I'm biased to think eating soup with a spoon is bette4 than with a fork for a reason.

[@garyphillips3552]

I just turned 80 and I haven't noticed any difference. I'll trust mother nature. She's been around 4 and a half billion years.

[@ScreamingManiac]

The porn star moustache is really getting out of hand

[@MiikeyLawless]

Nonsense, its perfection

[@christinek3122]

Agreed. It's a pornstash

[@Artsificial]

Just you wait until it reaches twirling length.

[@IsaiahAmos017]

Hey my dad has that mustache

[@ScreamingManiac]

@@IsaiahAmos017 What did your dad work as during the years from 1970-1990...

[@marcinkarpinski9163]

BTW, I've noticed that you don't add sources to your videos descriptions. Why s that? How can we know that statistics you provide are correct? Was it always like that?

[@muuubiee]

A lot of this infornation, if not majority, is taken from the TED talk "Why renewables can’t save the planet" by Michael Shellenberger

[@marcinkarpinski9163]

@@muuubiee Thank's but I don't know that watching this video. It's the author's responsibility to take care of the sources

[@dm7626]

Because it’s harder for people to prove you wrong if you conveniently don’t cite your sources :|

[@jasourwnjl]

Agree. Trust but verify. More KZbinrs in the non fiction channels not to start including at least some basic sources for us to further educate ourselves

[@jordiw913]

Do your pwn research clown

[@Waffleman860]

Excellent video. But incredibly painful to hear you say that centrifugal force is the cause of turbines continuing to spin in an absence of steam. Rotational inertia is what keeps them spinning. Centrifugal force is an effect, not a cause, of rotation.

[@dylanlucas3397]

Okay like... I understand the distinction between those two things, but he has the gist of it, any layman watching the video will understand what he means. Edit: Shoot.... at first I thought you were being too anal retentive but now the more I think about it the more it bugs me 😵

[@drippeeboye607]

@@dylanlucas3397 yea its completely different lol

[@dailysacrificedoublee]

“The best way to get the right answer to a question on the Internet is not to search for the right answer, but to post the wrong one, because someone will always come and correct you.” -Somebody, forgot who, paraphrased.

[@dylanlucas3397]

@@dailysacrificedoublee that's.... that's brilliant

[@markusklyver6277]

I don't know of anyone arguing for a complete change into just one type of energy. The solution will obviously always be a mixture of different energy sources to even out their respective cons and still have their benefits.

[@craigmooney3744]

is the grease and gallons of oil needed for wind turbines carbon neutral ?