Why Cheap Renewables Won't Save Us

[@OurChangingClimate]

Support OCC by signing up for Nebula using my link (and get 40% off): go.nebula.tv/occ Watch next month's video on microplastics: nebula.tv/videos/occ-how-dangerous-are-microplastics Watch my bonus ecosocialist fiction video: nebula.tv/videos/occ-what-will-an-ecosocialist-world-look-like

[@jerredhamann5646]

Also i forgot to mention ur not dealwith the full cycle cost of fossil vs renewables as most fossil investments in most cases are decades old and have long since paid for themselves thus meaning renewables are Competing against the maintenance and operating costs of fossil thus why it can be cheaper to operate a 40 year old coal plant than a windfarm

[@ovdtogt1]

It is not clear to me that a 'cheap' solar producer of electricity, that gets paid a higher tarif pegged to 'expensive' coal is not profitable, considering renewables only make up a small percentage of electricy generation: Europe's electricity generation 2021: Nuclear Power: 25% Natural Gas: 20% Coal: 15% Wind Energy: 13% Hydropower: 13% Solarpower: 5%

[@gnomechump-stiny7128]

No mention how communism are the best famine starters.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

not to mention the Aerosol Masking Effect as Daniel Rosenfeld's research group proved - twice as bad as previously thought! A 40% decrease in burning coal heats up EArth another 1 degree C. global average. oops!!

[@jamesgrover2005]

​@@gnomechump-stiny7128yes.. like the Bengali famine where possibly 20 million died because unneeded rice continued to be exported to the UK.. oh wait 🤔 that was capitalism. Ok then when all the buffalo were slaughtered to starve the north American Indians.. 🤔 oops Ok well at least there's no poverty in these two incredibly wealthy countries.. right?!. I mean, they extracted wealth from many others causing mass death {gestures towards, middle east, Africa, south America, Australia, north America, Asia and everywhere else} Poverty in USA 18% Poverty in UK 18.6%

[@yongjianyi3556]

In Singapore we pay taxes to the government to build utilities; water, electricity, sewage, public housing, etc. So far they are doing a good job. I think certain types of services shouldn't be privatized, or meant to be profitable.

[@TC-cq7oc]

I think the majority of people in the world today would agree with you. However, the majority of money in the world is held by people who disagree.

[@ipohertroyanov464]

In Singapore you have a pretty low level of corruption, and a competent government. In order to assign some tasks to the government you need to be certain it will do it properly. If most countries had that, we wouldn't have a lot of problems in the first place.

[@craigfoulkes]

​@@ipohertroyanov464lots of country's have good governments. The waste and corruption of companies is something you refuse to see

[@DeniSaputta]

​@@TC-cq7oc Liberal Capitalist Don't agree

[@Drunken_Master]

Singapore is a city-state, not a real country.

[@gracicot42]

Here in Québec we are powered 96% by renewable energy. The trick? We have a state owned company that is vertically integrated. Granted, we have a lot of hydro dams, but we also have a growing wind and solar capacity. No coal or gas planned.

[@seamon9732]

That's key, the endeavor needs to be non-profit. Meaning don't count on the private sector and their oligarchs for help. Quite the contrary, they'll try every trick in the book to delay, deny and defend the status quo.

[@monsieurbeige1925]

Sure, but the growing wind industry (and its basically non-existent solar counterpart) is set up under a private scheme aimed at privatizing Hydro Québec. Reading Brett Christophers' book was actually really enlightening to better understand how our unique system is slowly eroding away. Funnily enough, I got the chance to meet Brett in Montreal this autumn and got to explain to him the way our system is currently functioning. At first he thought we were a great example of what should be done, but at the end, he understood we were simply behind the trends and were in fact catching up to privatization standards that have been set by other, larger economies.

[@genbarnaky]

We also have the lowest electricity prices in north america

[@fr57ujf]

First, you get 96% of your ELECTRICITY from renewables. Electricity is 20% of your TOTAL ENERGY consumption, so you get less than 20% of your energy from renewables. Virtually all of your renewable energy comes from hydro, which has been around for over 100 years. Only 5% comes from wind and solar which translates to 1% of total energy. Third, hydro provides on-demand power which makes it like fossil fuels. Wind and solar are intermittent sources which will remain a major problem for grid integration until we build huge energy storage capacity. We need to transition, but inflating the achievements of wind and solar and understating the challenges is not the way to do it.

[@JC-PSC]

It’s the same situation the crown corporations in BC. We generate so much electricity from Hydro, that we ended up selling it to Alberta. They claim to love oil for its reliability, but our hydro dams actually fill the demand their oil fired generators cannot fulfill.

[@Bmeri3]

The fossil fuel industry is still being subsidized more than the renewable energy business. Isn’t that the issue not mentioned here?

[@erikhilsinger9421]

With governments owning the surface estate and having claims to the subsurface including oil and gas royalties the governments are not disinterested parties.

[@EarthCreature.]

Their title alone was a lie well before second 1 played

[@mojrimibnharb4584]

Nope.

[@piotr_jurkiewicz]

US isn't the whole world dude

[@davidtitanium22]

​@@EarthCreature.Watch the video

[@bozoldier]

Conclusion: since Free Market works well in renewables, capitalists cant make profits with it...

[@EarthCreature.]

That's why they used a lie in their title. Otherwise it would have said "Renewables aren't enough to save billionaires, here's why."

[@jimsimpson2820]

Plenty of businesses install solar to save money.

[@mitkoogrozev]

@@EarthCreature. Yeah. I thought he was going to speak not about abstract economics like money, profit, markets, investment strategies etc., but REAL economics. Meaning energy and resources, on which all the abstractions actually depend to even work. If we speak about energy and resources, the current vague plans of the "green transition" is not doable in terms of these real things, instead of money. The plans seem to be to keep growth as society is build upon that fiction to function currently + replacing every source of energy , industrial processes and transportation with electricity and batteries, which has been calculated, based on the inventory of stated existing resources globally, and looking at the speed at which new ones can be extracted in various industries, and taking into account known deposits that aren't mined yet, there simply isn't enough minerals to replace all of the existing things + to continue growth. Not for 8 + billion people that is. And definitely not enough to re-build everything again, once the tech breaks down in 15-20 years and need replacement, and most of them are not even recycled or figured out in practice how to be recycled yet, and we needed that solved yesterday. Yesterday would be like 30-50 years ago for a smoother transition that won't involve mass migration and mass deaths and wars. The resources on Earth simply don't exist/it's not economical to extract them (economical in terms of energy, that you will have to spend more energy to get something, compared to what you get out of it, which is a recipe for starvation, if we analogize with the human body. If you spend more calories to get food, than you get back, you eventually starve to death.) At least he very briefly mentioned ''de-growth'' near the end, which will be a thing that has to be done , for society to survive and to still include some high tech elements. They'll just have to be used intelligently , and more sparingly, where it matters, instead of for the sake of growth and profits as it's done now. Which would also require a completely new social organization as well. But de-growth would have to include not only energy and resource use de-growth, but de-grwoth in population as well. Because if you compare per-person resource increase in the last 50 years, vs absolute increase of energy and resources , most of the increase, is accounted for by the population increase. For example, if you have 3 billion people use X amount of energy, and in modern day lets say they use 4 times more. That's X4 energy usage overall if you keep the population at 3 billion. Now, put another 5-6 billion people on top. You get 4X5=20, so X20 energy usage overall. 4 is 20% out of 20, so the rest of the 80% of the energy increase is accounted for by population increase. A bit oversimplified by you get the point.

[@ArnaldurBjarnason]

yep. He's just lying through obfuscation. He tries to confuse you by explaining energy markets in the most convoluted way and throws a couple of contradictions in the mix to reach his desired conclusion that capitalism = bad. Obviously if you can out compete fossil fuel production in some ways, people will do it. There are other big (but solveable) issues that make the mass adoption of renewables more difficult. Namely energy storage and transmission.

[@Skrrrmaster48]

@@jimsimpson2820 I think you're confusing the concept of 'money saved by businesses that would otherwise be purchasing energy' with 'the money made by companies which get their money from controlling and distributing energy'. Renewable energy is good for the consumer, which in this case would be regular businesses, but its bad for the producer/seller. Hope this helps :)

[@marksilla8276]

I just saw in 2024 was the first year we were consistently at the 1.5 degree Celsius mark for the whole year, 2 decades earlier than predicted. we are so cooked (literally)

[@bélalugrisi]

Relax, the oceans won't boil for another 400 years. Best to you.

[@_Tp___]

It should decrease this year though temporarily, it's about average temperature being continuously above 1.5 degrees higher than pre-industrial levels. However we do have to get our act together because we are very close to that point.

[@bélalugrisi]

@_Tp___ Never going back again. As of 2024 we are roughly at 0.30°C gain per decade, but by 2034 this rate of change will rise to 0.35°C per decade. In other words, the rate of decadal warming is increasing. More precisely, each year the decadal warming appears to rise by roughly 0.005°C. This is the very definition of accelerated warming that Hansen el al warned us about. Hat tip to Eliot Jacobson of Climate Casino!

[@_Tp___]

@@bélalugrisi Yes it's going back again, temporarily. I would recommend going to watch Simon Clark's 2024 climate in review video.

[@bélalugrisi]

@_Tp___ Thanks!

[@Warrior_warlock]

The problem with these investors return calculations is that they do not include external costs in their calculations. Because they don't have to. Once we change this through legislation, as we should, then the business case would flip.

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

Carbon tax mandatory energy austerity is the most evil regressive anti-human tax besides attacks on blood

[@lm_b5080]

this is the difference between shareholder capitalism and stakeholder capitalism. those externals will only be measured as you say through legislation - penalties for non-compliance

[@fnamelname9077]

We are already doing this black-magic fantasy pricing through taxes, and it's the only way the fabulous lie of this video can be technically justified. Without the market distortions of anti-petroleum taxes and regulations, and the massive subsidy of non-thermal projects, there would be no mystery here.

[@Chris47368]

All I heard in this video about why renewables are being blocked is "profitability... profitability... profitability" - the level of human greed is absolutely disgusting. Here is an idea - nationalise the entire energy sector, remove all money out of politics and punish those entities responsible for the spread of misinformation that goes against the collective wellbeing of our people. Since as things are currently going in the world, we simply will not last as a species. We need to fight these interests for the sake of our survival.

[@a.randomjack6661]

"Wealth is addictive, the rich will eventually destroy society" -Socrates and friends (paraphrasing) Been demonstrated many times since...

[@jimsimpson2820]

How does anything get produced without profit? I'll wait

[@davebourgeois5022]

@@jimsimpson2820 Cool so we're just gonna ignore all the roads, sewers, schools, libraries, parks and public spaces, hospitals (in most wealthy nations), etc - and I almost forgot to mention the publicly owned energy system you're conversing about

[@something-from-elsewhere]

@@jimsimpson2820 Even if I accept your premise, 5-10% isn't "without profit" lol

[@jimsimpson2820]

@ So do those government services make money, or cost money?

[@ronlussier8570]

This shows what we've always known, but have ignored - if we want to make renewable electricity possible, it needs to be heavily regulated. Take it out of the hands of the private sector, along with healthcare.

[@leekah9981]

And you ignore NHI and Canadian healthcare, look what happens when they are running out of money😂

[@mementomori7825]

@@leekah9981 Eh, still take Canadian healthcare over US health insurance denial.

[@leekah9981]

@mementomori7825 Enjoy taking Canadian Medically Assisted in Dying then.

[@ArnaldurBjarnason]

This video shows nothing. It's self contradicting in many places.

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

Mandate DEI like LA government.

[@runeaanderaa6840]

The CEOs in the fossil fuel industry seem to make the same mistakes as the CEOs in the auto industry. The auto industry did not convert to EVs because they did so well producing ICE cars. Instead of investing in EVs, they used the profits to buy back stocks. Now, one can buy a better and cheaper EV, and the profit on ICE cars has plummeted. Nissan was practically bankrupt. VW and Stellantis have big problems. The energy industry does exactly the same. Instead of investing their profits in the future, they want to maximise their profit on a short time basis. It is just a question of time before the profits start dropping. There is no point in beating a dead dinosaur.

[@mreese8764]

A problem with capitalism is that people don't think of capital enough, like all the assets, but mainly of money.

[@JohanDanielAlvarezSanchez]

I agree with you. I have to say this video is really misguided. The oil industry can pretend reality doesn’t exists but renewables are coming for them. And faster than people think. China alone has installed so much solar and sold so much EVS that experts predict they will have peak CO2 emissions by 2026. Experts also predict weaker oil prices due to reduced demand. China has reduced new coal installations by89%. Etc, but people don’t do due research, like the one who made the video. Cero data and all vague ideas applied in strange ways.

[@Vaeldarg]

@@JohanDanielAlvarezSanchez China's numbers of panels and EVs don't really translate into CO2 emission reductions. They've been opening hundreds of new coal plants. Their governments/companies are so corrupt there, they're constantly just putting down higher numbers than were actually produced, and what has gotten produced ends up as fields of "rotting" EVs left out in the rain and kept hidden from tourists. They're not incentivised to lower emissions. They're incentivised just to produce a lot of it. Solar panels don't do anything if they're not actually plugged into anywhere.

[@Praisethesunson]

China has state lead development. The West has capitalist lead everything.​@@JohanDanielAlvarezSanchez

[@rjbiker66]

​@@JohanDanielAlvarezSanchez go look at some facts for a change. Fossil fuel.usage has never been higher and it growing. They are the facts.

[@arthurher8574]

One thing you are ignoring in your video is the Levelized Cost of Load Coverage (LCOLC). While renewables are cheaper by LCOE, it is actually not a good metric to look at for renewables. They are much less flexible (and I am only talking about the most scalable power sources, wind and solar) and require significant upgrades to our electricity grids, including smarter distribution, energy storage and supplementary inertia support using re-purposed turbines. As such, the actual cost of renewable electricity (the IEA uses VALCO(E)) is much higher and will likely stay as high as fossils until 2030 or later. Please don't get me wrong, I am a huge advocate of the transition (and of a more socialist one) but there are genuine, technological constraints and challenges when it comes to reforming the grid. I work with large banks, energy providers and manufacturers and have met many people who have an honest interest in actually getting away from emissions-intensive practices, but are facing quite a few significant challenges.

[@bw9382]

Yep this is an economic coverage and fails to cover the engineering aspect of fossil fuels. To be real fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere for at least the next 50 years they are too important. We need them for chemical synthesis, polymer, plastic, etc. transportation and infrastructure for petroleum not really gas is already built up, easy to build and maintain. Petroleum is supremely excellent at being stored and burned. Also people don’t really mention we still have absurd reserves of oil both in the US and abroad for example although the USA had a shale revolution much of the world still hasn’t started horizontal drilling (fracking) to tap unconventional oil reserves

[@commieTerminator]

Won't residential solar reduce the stress from the grid?

[@SolarPunkEngineer]

I think long-term power storage solutions that are being developed could help address this in the coming years

[@Sandroggy]

@@commieTerminator Not at the right time of the day. We cannot store large quantity of electricity, therefore when it is generated (hour of the day, month of the year) has a huge impact on the value of the electricity produce. Thats the big missing of the vidéo, the issue is not the market, its the reality that renewable are not always producing when we consume. Solar will not power my kitchen or heat pump in a winter evening. Lets add a battery and store the solar energy for the evening ? Ok but now it become expensive.

[@beckyeclaire]

​@@commieTerminator only if it's stored on site. Res solar feeding back in during peak times can further strain the grid, and if the property is not self-sufficient (using only the energy generated & stored on site) then they'll be drawing from the grid during evening peaks when solar isn't generating. It can definitely help!!

[@SadeN_0]

18:47 "There aren't enough Amazons in the world" - Our Changing Climate, 2025

[@TheFabledSCP7000]

That is actually pretty good

[@TheFabledSCP7000]

Oh He was talking about the corp

[@EarthCreature.]

Yep they're collaborators

[@snakeweasel]

most wilfully taken out of context award, 2025 goes to.... this comment.

[@simonmasters3295]

Cleverly taken out of original context?

[@lkrnpk]

I think the water wheel and steam analysis is flawed... You cannot put water wheels everywhere, there are not enough such rivers/capacity for it to be a great solution. There are places where hydro has been already wonderfully used, where they are available. Where they are not available, they are not. Also in Norway profitability of wind is destroyed by cheap hydro. not by some fossils. Norway's grid is already 98,8% renewable and most of it is legacy hydro. Also it depends on the market, there are places where no new fossil generation is planned and solar wind is going full speed ahead and they are capitalist countries... they tend not to have their own oil or natural gas though

[@nolan4339]

Government is actually pretty good at managing service-oriented industries. Having public systems and providers in place which compete with private providers on public systems is a decent model to follow.

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

Name one Public Power System that is less expensive than a private run power system, and remember it was the government that selected private power options because government can't run even itself. Government is why we're 37 trillion dollars bankrupt

[@underthedice1231]

In other words, renewables are harder to monopolize

[@juliansebastian]

Ironically I was shown a Monopoly ad right after you said “So, what’s really stopping us from a renewable transition?” at 4:39 😂

[@coolioso808]

You won't be shown a Revolution Now podcast ad, because Peter Joseph is critical of capitalism, so I'll pass this along to you. Take a look, if you fancy.

[@izzunrazak8771]

​@@coolioso808 also New Human Right Movement ✊🏼

[@coolioso808]

@ Best book!

[@adr2t]

Without even watching the video, I can already tell you that wind isnt the answer really. Solar is just FAR cheaper in terms of install cost and getting something out of it. Either option sitll requires batteries - so even if you install a ton of it - unless you have something that can store it or make use of it during the day - then its a bit pointless to install stuff like that. IF anything, we're learning the hard way that battery storage is more important than the cheaper power source it self. It really turns out we waste soo much power as heat and non storage needs it could be as high as 40% depending on the country. Like that is crazy!

[@junedtan2]

Go watch the video until the end, you will conclude differently. It's not about battery technology. For me it's about human ingenuity being hampered by the never ending greedy quest for profit.

[@adr2t]

@@junedtan2 I did, even he came down to the same that battery storage is pretty much the key lol follow by human greedy, but looks like some how we are still pushing forward so green stim to hold us back

[@michaelharrison1093]

One factor not discussed in this video is that idea with PV there is the opportunity to circumvent a large part of these legacy energy markets. It make little sense to install large amounts of PV out in desserts and remote locations that result in a need to transmit and distribute the energy through the legacy networks controlled by the legacy markets when PV can be built out in the very city's where yhe consumers live. The priority should be on installing as much PV capacity as possible on residential and commercial buildings, covering every available parking lot with PV canopies and mixed agriculture and PV all located as close to the populated centers as possible. In addition to this local PV production there needs to be investment in localized battery energy storage with conventional fossil fuel generation for the few worst days of the year. There is a huge legacy investment in electrical power transmission and it makes no sense to expect PV to keep this legacy infrastructure profitable when it is simply not needed for PV. I am not advocating off-grid renewable as this is clearly much more expensive than on-grid, but what I am advocating is that energy grids should be city wide infrastructure and not country wide infrastructure. Why expect PV to maintain the profitability of electrical energy transmission infrastructure when it simply doesn't need it?

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

Classic ignorance of grid base load demand requirement for fossil power. All distributed solar does is disharmonized the grid and cause massive voltage spikes and drops that harm electronics and computers. Until batteries are cheaper than diesel or Hydro putting solar panels on residential is only going to disrupt the grid.

[@aaroncosier735]

I think there will still be a huge role for transmission. Any single city or region can be overcast for extended periods, far more than any reasonable battery backup. PV elsewhere can still supply, given transmission, and greatly reduce the need for large battery reserves or fossil backups. On a daily basis, the evening peak is best served by PV located substantially west, and oriented to the setting sun. This reduces overall generation per panel year, but can generate more directly into demand, minimising the daily dependence on storage. True standalone, be it a small site or a city, requires a lot of storage or backup. There will certainly be a role for transmission in the renewable world.

[@fern3436]

I think there is an equally possible future where transmission becomes even more important. Without going too far into the weeds, power systems become a lot more complicated when you can't make assumptions about the direction of power flow. So you're always going to pick a poison; convert the existing distribution system to a transmission system, or continue to expand the more centralized transmission grid. Additionally, diversification through transmission will conveniently decrease your local energy storage needs. Why store a bunch of energy in the east when the west conveniently has the most sunshine during the east's peak demand hours? HVDC can be built today and is cost effective.

[@ldygzlle1291]

Every single person who owns real estate should have their own solar. Stop expecting governments to do it. If you own a roof and you don’t have solar, you are part of the problem. It’s cheap enough for everyone to have backup power. I live off grid and my solar system is small but plenty enough.I don’t know when the power goes out until my neighbor needs help. Stop making excuses and be part of the solution.

[@velisvideos6208]

Perhaps in California or Texas. Doesn't work in Alaska or Northern Europe. One needs sunlight for solar, and we just don't get much in winter. Something to do with geometry...

[@ldygzlle1291]

@ good point-I was trying to motivate my fellow Americans in the 48… what about wind or hydro?

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

Biggest US eco-diisster of 2026 was a HAIL STORM.

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

The biggest Echo disaster of 2024 was a massive hail storm that destroyed all the solar panels in the region. So not only do you have to pay to bring in new solar panels you have to pay to put the destroyed panels into Hazmat landfill, which is all subsidized by taxes so that the true cost of renewable are never revealed and no one has ever done and you'll never see a full lifetime energy cost analysis for solar. They only talk about first cost, not maintenance not early replacement. It's a poor technology for a National Grid

[@SuperFlashDriver]

@@ldygzlle1291 I've been thinking of water, steam, etc. or any other source....Heck, have we forgotten about wireless electricity that could possibly help with finding a way to store all of those lightning bolts happening during rainy storms and such????

[@johnransom1146]

End fossil fuel subsidies, tax them hard and subsidize renewables. This should make fossil fuels unattractive.

[@leekah9981]

Good, then whatever food and items you get from Amazon, the groceries, and taxes will increased multiple folds. If you stop the fuel subsidies. Because the majority we used in real life is based on Oil.

[@faraimupfuti3530]

Not feasible! Economies would collapse without fossil fuels. Every industry from healthcare, manufacturing, etc, relies on fossil fuels. But I agree that renewables must be subsidised.

[@leekah9981]

@@faraimupfuti3530 but this person doesn't even realize how many people will suffer for that ideals.

[@jackred2362]

@@leekah9981 There is nothing wrong with providing with people of what they need. What's wrong is actively maintaining it as what people need, i.e. through lobbying. The thing is, if we subsidise and invest in the alternatives enough we can drive down the price. It's how the Chinese government made solar cheaper over of the years. And there are plenty of "low-hanging fruits" alternatives to what we can replace many Oil-based/plastics products with, but are currently just a little bit more expensive. As a result of many lobbying efforts, it means we still use plastic bags, straws, lack of public transport, EV imports etc, while other countries has made miles in improvements.

[@leekah9981]

@jackred2362 did you solved the electric grid problem, is there location for battery to hold electricity? That is the problem tht most green energy would never fly.

[@SqrWave]

This entire video is flawed. You start by looking at ALL fossil fuel consumption, and then the rest of the video looks at the electrical Power grid generation. These things are not directly related. Much fossil fuel goes direct to industry and transport. Take a look at Quebec and Ontario. Grid transition is near complete. The answers are hydro and nuclear, not wind or solar.

[@akimmilanov3545]

The precedent in the US as it always will be will be brute force highest profit margins; for this reason alone, I disagree with this video's adamant inclusion of fossil fuel and oil executive commentary on renewable futures. The real players and payers when it comes to renewable generation will be utility companies, oil and gas is owned primarily by the major institutions like Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, as well other asset management institutions. Their only goal is to extract the highest return and will likewise pressure for that same highest. This won't be the same case when it comes to utilities, which can be private as well as often rely on more state-centric energy policies for their investment profile, ex. projects in Quebec will likely be renewable in nature due to governmental pressures, however, in Texas, renewable energy projects will be advantageous primarily due to a cost perspective while in California they won't be. Likewise, working in the wind industry, PPA's are also the main source of concrete agreement a developer needs in order to sell their power to the grid, wherever it may be, ERCOT, MISO, or CAL. PPA's are not just for warehouses or commitments to databases but also for utilities to transmit the power through the building of a renewable project, ex. Vestas selling power at a set rate to Cordelio, Nordex selling power to Duke Energy, GE Vernona selling power to MidAmerican, all have to be sold through PPA's as part of the risk mitigation of selling a project in order for more uniform profit. In conclusion, I see the shift away from renewable energy (specifically solar and wind, we'll see how nuclear goes) more to do with big oil & gas on the decline in their ability to generate profitability enough to satisfy their major institutional shareholders, especially in the US, as shale reserves continue to shrink, specifically offshore, and the pressure to merge and optimize profitability has outweighed their charity effort at best to decarbonize an essentially impossible industry like oil & gas. The future is definitely in renewables, just not for those who see the world in +40-50% profit margins.

[@timbehrens9678]

LOL, Germany spent hundreds of billions on renewables and it got crumbling economy, electricity prices 3 times higher than in the US, and neonazis surging in polls.

[@mapratt]

Oops, we just elected the orange one. Guess this won't be happening for at least the next 4 years.

[@comradestannis]

Or 8 or 12 if we're not careful.

[@shotybumbati]

Conclusion: renewables are cheap but unreliable. Just go nuclear people. If we can be responsible, there's no comparison.

[@PhillyPinkStan]

Nuclear is the most expensive option. Guaranteed cost overruns. The South Koreans and the French have many nuclear plants, but neither has been able to reduce cost through increased production. Meanwhile solar panels can be manufactured on an assembly line, leading to lower average cost per unit. See Wright's Law. Also, there will like be unforeseen issues with newer generation reactor designs that we are not aware of. (Note this can also be the case with solar, wind, geothermal, etc.).

[@Objectified]

Nuclear is the most scalable option, and were it more common its costs, too, would reduce dramatically. Nuclear costs have already come down. And nuclear, aside from being scalable and flexible, has few of the massive external costs of renewable. Attempting to exclude nuclear from a discussion on meeting the massive increases in energy demand in an environmentally beneficial way us dishonest.

[@shotybumbati]

@Objectified and if the argument is that investment in renewables should fall on the government to foot the upfront costs then nuclear is really the way to go untill we get a feasible fusion reactor

[@davidemensigamerCH]

​@@PhillyPinkStan check how much energy prices have risen in France during Europe's energy crisis. Nuclear is still our best friend for grid base load. Nuclear+renewables+storage is the way to go

[@PhillyPinkStan]

@@Objectified the French and to a lesser extent South Koreans have not been able to reduce average price per unit with increased production. Meanwhile solar has declined in price by 90% since 2000. Wind turbines have declined in price by 70% since 2009. Can you point to reductions in cost like that for nuclear power?

[@peterhughes3648]

What about the growth of personal renewable energy such as homes with solar panels? Doesn't this contribute to the growth of renewables as customers try to escape the cost of capitalised markets?

[@Praisethesunson]

Yes. But individual actions can never solve systemic problems.

[@christineroesch5329]

I believe it can, once we can change how we buy electricity. There is a guge increase in homes being self powered.

[@RagginDragon13]

I live in FL and it costs me money to be part of the Solar Together program with FPL - our local power company. Some months it pays for itself and many months it costs more than the savings. I find this strange since you would think the solar fields take much less manpower than the nuclear plant down the street. Also, I work in the solar lighting industry, which has been flooded with cheap products, making the industry difficult to navigate since people think that the industry is inherently bad. There are a number of bad actors, but there are a handful of companies who are manufacturing products that aren't meant to be replaced constantly and instead can last 20+ years.

[@evan448]

It's because the solar is only useful when it coincides with peak load usually in the summer months. When it comes in during that low part in the day the savings isn't really there and you get duck curve ramping which can cost more than what you saved over that low period. Hence why some months you save and other months you lose

[@singingway]

I'm glad you explained that. I have purchased many different brands of solar lights, none of them last more than a few months. How do I find the good companies?

[@tonypalmetto6114]

Finance or lease your own solar panels for less per month than FPL bills. By buying their solar power, you're just padding their profits. Solar is cheaper for them, but they're a for profit company. Why would they pass savings on to you instead of execs and shareholders?

[@Brishtah]

I'm Irish but have visited Florida many times. It always amazes me that there's so little solar being used. And Florida relies on so much natural gas for power. You could probably generate so much solar during the daytime it'd pay for any gas you need as base load in the night l. But I'm guessing the grid isn't set up for that. I also heard some insurance companies won't insure your roof if you have solar in FL!

[@AKAtheA]

it takes 4km2 of solar panel area at 25% efficiency and 1kW/m2 iradiance to match a *single* 1GWe reactor. The reactor can run close to 100% power for months, solar has this peak for 1-2 hours per day and 0% output for about 1/2 a day. The reactor is prob. less then 100 ppl each and will last 50+ years if allowed to. The city-sized solar park will need a 3rd set of panels by then. Can we plz agree that the solar field will need optimistically prob. an order of magnitude ppl for the same amount of energy made?

[@EricMeyer9]

What your describing has happened several times--- with nuclear. France decarbonized their grid in under 15 years with nuclear. No one has done it with wind and solar. Germany is trying and failing. 100 percent renewables is not the goal. 100 percent low carbon is the goal. Remember that.

[@gangsta_loki3159]

I agree, a combination of nuclear and renewables is the way to go

[@Praisethesunson]

Tell Niger how great France's nuclear power system is.

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

100% Renewables is a meaningless statement anyway because neither solar cells nor wind power can generate in their lifetime cycle the energy it takes to mine manufacture distribute and install replacement solar panels or wind power. It is never going to be Net Zero that was the biggest lie that Renewables made. They are totally dependent on carbon taxes. The $84B Biden 'Renewable Energy' slush fund, that Bernie voted for, was immediately TAPPED by Pentagon for $30B to build tactical nuclear bunker busters "and for other purposes" [Defense Weekly} There were NO AUDITS. *That $84B has already vanished.*

[@jet_lee2024]

China is deploying massive batteries globally to support consistent longer hours of renewable energy use and storage.

[@SolarPunkEngineer]

So I think one positive thing not discussed here is large scale power storage solutions that are coming to the forefront of the energy market. With Wind and Solar's major pitfalls being variable energy production, long-term energy storage allows us to break the just-in-time nature of the electrical grid and level out renewable's distribution to the grid. While these things still cost, they can be sold and integrated into today's grid and marketed as a safety and assurance feature. The variety of different methods of doing this is super interesting to me personally, with people using traditional chemical batteries (iron-rust, and zinc-bromide), heat/cold based batteries (superheating salt, liquifying and compressing oxygen), and even gravity (hauling massive stones into the air to store power produced as potential energy). With so many different avenues (more I didn't mention) to achieve efficient long-term energy storage, I feel like there can be a glimmer of hope

[@Celis.C]

ALL sources that produce anything related to human _needs_ must be protected from privatization and nationalized if it isn't already. Food, healthcare, energy, housing, water, heat, etc. To have all of these controlled by greedy psychopaths is the scariest thought one should have.

[@GervaisRioux]

Well said! Everything that is a necessity by nature (food, health, etc.) or by law (insurance for example) should be public or state owned corporations. When you aim by profitability, greed is lurking behind.

[@timbehrens9678]

The worst nuclear disaster happened at a plant built and operated by a socialist government. And don't get me started on food, healthcare, or housing that was run by the aforementioned socialist government.

[@shad0wyenigma]

I am by no means an expert on this but you seem to be forgetting the rapid decreases in cost of energy storage. The cost of Li-ion batteries dropped 20% in 2024 according to energy storage news. It seems to me that the profitability crisis can be solved by shifting when electricity is sold away from the peaks of renewable production. This would allow energy to be stored when it’s cheap and sold when it’s expensive, boosting profits. That being said I agree that governments should take a greater role in investing in renewables.

[@gregvanpaassen]

Trouble is, if anyone can do it, so can anyone else. So the high prices get competed away, and there goes your business case for building the storage.

[@SageWon-1aussie]

​@@gregvanpaassenIsn't it great to argue for higher electricity bills. /s

[@JohanDanielAlvarezSanchez]

@@gregvanpaassen Let me clarify your point. Are you suggesting that if a kilowatt-hour (kWh) of coal-generated electricity costs approximately 11.1 cents, while a kWh of solar-generated electricity costs around 6 to 8 cents, consumers would still opt for the more expensive coal energy simply because the profit margin for solar isn’t high enough? That doesn’t make sense. Consumers aren’t concerned with profitability-they care about the price they’re paying.

[@grischa762]

​@@JohanDanielAlvarezSanchez that is not what he meant. Currently the price for electricity fluctuates heavily. So as storage options become cheaper it will be possible to capitalise on this by storing energy when the price is low and then sell it again when the price is high. As more and more companies join in the price will start to stabilise and thus reduce profits. Or in other words: without government intervention in the form of state owned companies or subsidies we will never have as much storage capacity as we would actually need for a full transition to renewable energy sources... Because that will never be profitable enough for private investors.

[@ArnaldurBjarnason]

@@grischa762 You just don't understand markets at all. Investors can't stop other investors from investing in something profitable. If something is profitable today, someone will invest in it. You are using the same absurd thinking as the OCC video is pushing. As evidence, I present the massive increase in private sector investments in renewable energy and storage in recent years. And no, it's not all because of subsidies. It's because it's a cheaper power plant per unit of energy produced.

[@runeaanderaa6840]

The CO2 emissions in Europe have dropped by 30% in 20 years, mostly by investing in renewable energy.

[@AvdMasdey20]

No, most of the pollution reduced by moving polluting industries to China and other low income countries.

[@nishant54]

Nope europe didn't have pollting industries like usa​@@AvdMasdey20

[@ChrisNotTheKing]

​@@AvdMasdey20 China has installed more renewable capacity than any country, by far. Masses of coal-fired generation has been cancelled.

[@runeaanderaa6840]

@AvdMasdey20 What are your sources for this? It is not just the segment of CO2 emissions associated with heavy industry that has gone down. So has emmisions from households, transportation and other segments. The monetary value generated by European industries has increased in the same period. So, most of the decrease comes from more effective use of energy and increased solar and wind energy.

[@davecarl7142]

You forgot one important question. Can you trust government bureaucrats to run an effective economical large-scale electrical industry without them raiding or pillaging their budgets? Plus to bring this to full scale Governments will have to raise funds through bonds, mass scale loans and increasing taxation. This will make the consumer and the lower classes will feel the pinch. In the end, it is better to buy your own electrical system for your own use and not rely on private or government utilities.

[@trollsofalabama]

1. The only competitive fossil fuel power generation is CC (combined gas) 2. Capex of fossil fuel power generation (or upfront cost you say) in general is not definitely not lower than renewable. Even the lowest capex out of all fossil fuel (CC) is not lower than renewable in general. 3. Fossil Fuel power generation scale generally off of vertical scaling (bigger power plants, some physical attributes becomes vastly more favorable), while renewable scale off of horizonal scaling (modular, make many of them, the more you make of them, the cheaper you learn to make them). We have not seen the end of horizonal scaling, but (controlling for scientific/technological breakthroughs) we have seen basically the limit of vertical scaling. 4. Even looking at scientific/technological breakthroughs, because fossil fuel power generation is so mature, we are not seeing them reduce cost for decades, but we are still seeing new scientific/technological breakthroughs with renewables. I will agree with you that renewable is not as profitable probably due to the intermittent nature, but batteries/energy storage has also been falling off a cliff in cost at the same time. A combined renewable generation plus batteries system will have a system level lcoe lower than CC in the future, a matter of when, not if, and there really just won't be any establishment talking points that can save fossil fuel. But the modular nature of wind and solar is very interesting, it can lead to nano-grid/micro-grid strategies; you can have solar panels on your roof, but you won't generate electricity with a small natural gas plant in your backyard.

[@MichalisFamelis]

I wonder whether the profitability "problem" is why the Canadian Right is so fanatically railing against the carbon tax, when the government explicitly returns the tax revenues to citizens. It looks like it makes the oil&gas investments unprofitable and redistributes the surplus profits.

[@TheFabledSCP7000]

That is exactly why the right all over the world is consumed by the bribes of Big Oil

[@ColdBaltBlue]

It’s because they’re a bunch of idiots who never thought to ask why we had a carbon tax in the first place. They’re old NIMBYs who can’t stand the need for change to better society, all because they liked it when they ruled the world and cannot pass down the torch.

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

Don't fool yourself government skims a minimum of 35% off the top of the carbon tax. In the US 85% of the carbon tax stays in Washington DC Nova, and there is no rebate to poor people. The welfare system is Run for the benefit of illegal aliens, there are the ones getting the free hotels and a free food cards paid for by taxes like the carbon tax. It all goes into a general fund and none of it is paying a penny to save the planet

[@mitesh8utube]

In India I Installed 4.32 KW rooftop solar for around USD 2400. Payback period will be 3 years. That's much more than 10% return. I think your math is missing something.

[@akacicaa]

Obviously depends on the place and prices, but in PLENTY of cases the returns are very nice..

[@jeffy4067]

Some countries have their own fossil fuels, hence electricity is cheaper there.

[@ArnaldurBjarnason]

Agreed. The math, and reasoning is really off in this vid.

[@Praisethesunson]

You are missing that individual action is nothing compared to the systematic demands of capitalism

[@junkerzn7312]

This video is full of nonsense. Do these people have even the remotest idea of the huge impact grid-scale battery systems have had on both the California and Texas grids? In Texas alone, grid-scale battery systems more or less pay for themselves in just a few years. It's a bit glutted right now, but the largest impact is actually on fossil generation which used to make its best margins during peak demand periods... those profits are now being taken by the battery systems instead. And in California, energy storage systems have removed the need to run new transmission lines for capacity expansions in several major geographic areas, particularly the coastal areas south of San Francisco. That reduced the net cost of the batteries so much that people are falling over each other to install as much storage as possible now to take advantage of the arbitrage. One would think they would at least look at the renewable expansion that is already happening before saying things that have already proven not to be true. "Renewables aren't profitable"... except they are profitable. Just not as profitable as oil. Which means that while the likes of Shell might not have wanted to invest in renewables, plenty of other people certainly have. And did. And are making a tidy return on their investment. The video also talks about up-front costs, but that's kinda the whole point of renewables and the installation costs have dropped so much every year that investors like the determinism of not having surprise costs pop-up later down the line, due to the extremely low maintenance costs for renewable generation. Fossil fuel installations have lower up-front costs, but relatively heavy ongoing maintenance costs that scale with inflation. Renewable installations do not have costs that really scale with inflation. There is so much more here but honestly... it looks like intentional disinformation to me. -Matt

[@AlbertoBarrera1]

Exactly, we're in an awkward time of not being able to properly handle the glut of renewable energy overproduction, which is why companies have scaled back generation projects. As storage solutions expand, the profit incentives will turn to generation once renewable energy can be captured and distributed in a more consistent manner. I'm all for the nationalization of the energy sector, but this guy unironically using the term "imperial core" shows he's pushing a political agenda with this video rather than a rational approach to grid scale energy problems.

[@SeeNickView]

Yeah, it's not infrequent to see OCC weave a narrative into their videos, just as other sources do. Guess in 2025 it's still not that all possible to find a well balanced, informed source without doing your own vetting. Probably should be that way anyways

[@jeremyquentin42]

Or we could treat carbon emissions like any other finite resource (with limited carbon credits), making coal prohibitively expensive, and carbon-free energy production profitable.

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

There is no carbon-free form of energy production what do you think that solar panels fall from Heaven?

[@shadeblackwolf1508]

Water wheels were cheaper than coal. But Coal won cause it could be used to exploit desperate city folk, while water was location locked giving the workers more power.

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

Coal won because it is transportable shareable reliable power. Duhh.

[@Objectified]

No.

[@allenjunge4127]

@@Objectified Are you saying that coal won for different reasons, or that coal didn't facilitate the exploitation of workers? In either case, Why do you believe that?

[@nocontrol2543]

Other than the fact that sometimes there just isn't enough sun or wind. The other major issue with wind/solar is the cost to deploy a new power plant. While the total cost per kWh delivered is now often cheaper for renewables, the cost to deploy/bring online a new power plant is still significantly higher(3-10x?) for renewables, since much of the cost of fossil fuels is paid as you buy/transport the fuel, rather than having to pay all of the cost up front. Add compound interest.... and renewables plus storage probably need to be 1/5th the cost per kWh, or less, to truly make economic sense. This would be a good place for govt subsidies ........

[@endless_puns]

Two things that also pose problems which you didn't mention are excessive bureaucracy and geopolitical threats. Here in the Nordics, several projects have been held back for years due to the government being too slow with giving the necessary permissions to proceed with construction, or withdrawing support (subsidies) altogether, which has made the projects less profitable. In addition, with the threat of Russia looming, several offshore wind projects have been cancelled as nobody wants to make their electrical grid so easily vulnerable to sabotage (see the recent sea cables shenanigans in the North Sea).

[@comradestannis]

The "Russian threat" is made-up by the MSM. The problem is the expansion of NATO. That is the whole problem and the issue at stake.

[@comradestannis]

The USA should push Ukraine to have a peace deal instead of preventing one like they did in 2022.

[@LynneMcCabe-y2y]

The batteries that store the solar energy are NOT green! When they wear out, then we have to find a place to put the harmful waste. Wind energy has environmental consequences as well. You want to change your carbon footprint? Change your habits! Carpool to work, ride a non-electric bicycle to work, change your HOA rules about clothes lines in your back yard, turn up your thermostat in summer to 76 degrees F. And down to 68 degrees in winter. Use less fast fashion, reduce your waste, reuse glass jars for storage, etc.

[@Cancellator5000]

Compared to fossil fuels they are absolutely angelic, but I generally agree. Also, stop eating animal products because that's absolutely the biggest harm people cause to the environment in their everyday lives.

[@Cancellator5000]

I'd also say for a lot of those they are part of structural issues. You can use building materials that greatly reduce the need for a thermostat, heat pumps, etc. There should be more public transportation. People should be able to afford to live near where they work. Companies shouldn't produce fast fashion and should make things that last. To a certain extent, people are going to avoid inconveniencing themselves unless there is support. That being said I'd encourage people to think about what they can do right now and fight for changes that will make it easier for others.

[@CH-et4go]

@@LynneMcCabe-y2y agree with all you say. But here's a thought: I'd bet that the majority of people in the UK don't have their central heating running hot or for long, it's too expensive.

[@macmcleod1188]

What is the population drops naturally we won't have to reduce consumption. Batteries are recyclable But it's too late in terms of carbon . It's a decade too late. Hard times wait in the near future.

[@shadylane7988]

Some cultures are about consumerism and until that changes, we'll continue to go down this unsustainable path. Not enough people care or can even change or want to change their habits. It's like any addiction. Small changes in individuals lives might make you feel better.

[@Spartacusse]

Wow, this is one of the stupidest takes I've ever seen. As a person from Brazil, where energy generation stayed in the Government's hands, I guarantee you won't like the constant power outages every fortnight or when it rains, even on a state's capital.

[@MrPetzold123]

In Nordic countries (specifically Sweden and Finland) there's been a huge boom of wind power, last I checked Sweden had about 17 GW and Finland about 8 GW. Very often wind is blowing similarly in both countries and the effect is very visible: windy day = zero or negative price. There is no money to be made, lots of bankruptcies ahead. Another big problem is that electricity can not be stored cost effectively, which makes LCOE calculations meaningless, if talking about 24/7/365 production. Yet another is renewables effect on the grid itself: it was (and is) much easier and cheaper to build stable grids using big generators' inertia.

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

Used to work with a diesel grid that installed a 25 megawatt solar field for Federal carbon credits. Over the initial startup whenever clouds would cover the Sun the Diesels would have to rev up to compensate otherwise the voltage would cause computers to go offline. Then the sun would come out again and voltage would spike they would have to scram the diesel generators. One 6MW generator sparked out melted the coil. One generator caught fire.The grid reliability went to s*** Their solution was to build a load bank, basically a giant toaster oven, *and run the Surplus solar power into that to burn it off as heat.* That way they kept getting their Federal carbon credits to pay off the field, and everyone was happy because igrid was restabilized. Residential solar is even worse because every rooftop is seeking its own lock up with the grid frequency and voltage. There is research Dis-harmonization of the Energy Grid by Distributed Solar installation, but it can't get funding because it flies in the face of the given wisdom of Pensions.Gov.

[@Praisethesunson]

@@MrPetzold123 it's always wild to me that electric generation being so abundant the price becomes less than zero, is considered a bad thing. That "logic" is exactly why the West has driven humanity into a warming planet.

[@factnotfiction5915]

@@Praisethesunson > electric generation being so abundant the price becomes less than zero, is considered a bad thing. It is a bad thing, because where does the money for future investment come from? Even if you zero out profits, you STILL want the price to be greater than zero such that you have capital to invest for the future - new plants, new transmission, new distribution, and maintenance of old plants/transmission/distribution.

[@Praisethesunson]

@@factnotfiction5915 lol my comment you responded to disappeared.

[@PhillyPinkStan]

@@factnotfiction5915 You are correct about zero marginal cost for additional production of renewable energy in some circumstances. However, most of the contracts on the US electricity market are based on futures, meaning that future prices are guaranteed to be at a certain agreed upon rate, thus not being zero, or below zero. While purchasing electricity on the spot market does happen, for planning purposes I think most large consumers of electricity use futures to have predictable costs.

[@DistrustHumanz]

The issue is not with energy production, but with consumption. When we have increased energy production in the past, we have always increased consumption. We have come to the point where we simply consume too much now for green energy solutions to compete with fossil fuels. We have to re-learn what it means to be frugal.

[@hubertvachon8723]

Yaaah this is the comment I want to see!

[@SageWon-1aussie]

Renewables make so much energy that it's too cheap for investors to realise the same profits as fossil fuels, which have natural limits in procurement and transportation. That is the gist of the video you commented on, but obviously didn't watch.

[@Brishtah]

True, but now AI is set to guzzle ever more power

[@paperburn]

when I remodeled my house I also gave it an energy retrofit, cut my energy bills in half with a ROI of 3 years on the energy portion.

[@Praisethesunson]

You need to burn more electricity so all the microchips in the stuff you buy can harvest your data to sell. Duh.

[@reluginbuhl]

If costs continually drop and the bids made by renewables also therefore drop, they still receive the price of the last, highest bidder. Given that renewables are typically only part of the electricity generation, this means that they are not setting the price. It seems to me that your analysis is flawed. It is also true that during an energy transition, initially renewables will begin my replacing new non-renewable generation, then after a while renewable will begin to replace existing non-renewables. The fact that we are generally only adding renewables and not yet replacing much existing non-renewables does not mean that this will not start happening in the future. The conclusion that we will only arrive at renewable energy generation via socialism is nonsense. Well... the conclusion that we can ever get to renewable energy generation in time is nonsense. Just look at the election of Trump: democracy will not lead to a rapid energy transition. It will in fact tend to delay it. Looking far into the future when making decisions is not something that most humans are good at, and collectively we are hopeless at it.

[@David-lr2vi]

16:24 Here in Queensland (Australia) the wholesale power price regularly goes negative on sunny days due to the massive amount of solar being exported onto the grid. This definitely doesn’t get passed on to consumers though and just becomes more profit for the electricity retailer who charges a flat rate for the electricity sold to the consumer! Renewables ARE highly profitable but not for those actually generating the electricity, it’s highly profitable for the electricity retailers, who capture all of that unearned profit!

[@Praisethesunson]

Exactly right

[@Oldman_Gamer2]

Yeah, power bills are now higher than 5 years ago when I had no solar, compared to having 8kW of panels now. So renewables have been incredibly expensive, AND in 3 years I've had to replace the inverter, a meter and a panel, and my data provider stopped some services, my installer went into liquidation and the manufacturer of the inverter has exited the Australian market - its constant work keeping the power on.

[@user-tq1xt2ct8s]

Please God, can we run out of fossil fuels already?

[@patrickortiz2898]

First its not even fossils but they have been such a boon to mankind that you are a fool for hating oil and gas

[@JustSomeGith]

@@patrickortiz2898 'Such a boon' Yeah, destroying the environment by spouting billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and speeding up climate change to such a degree that it's staggering. You're a fool for thinking oil and gas are a boon when it's literally destroying the planet, or just so full of propaganda that you don't even realize how misinformed you are.

[@banoko]

​@@patrickortiz2898boon for manking to doom for planet.

[@trevordillon1921]

⁠​⁠@@patrickortiz2898when your boon starts choking the air (already has been for a while actually. You should look into how many deaths a year are directly traced to air pollution) and demonstrably altering the weather for the worse, exactly as was promised, and worse remains on the horizon, is it wise to continue? Oil was invaluable, Methane’s had its uses as well, but we have both the capability and an overwhelming need to move on. As with most things in life, there was a cost to this boon, one we cannot afford to pay much longer. If you refuse to see that there’s nothing I can say that would persuade you, but I at least hope you understand: this isn’t about “hating oil and gas,” it’s about the consequences of oil and gas now outweighing those substantial benefits that allowed us to get here, and having viable alternatives for every need. It’s no less foolish, I suppose, to think we NEED oil and gas because of what they do now, when we are entirely capable of replacing them.

[@GeorgeTheIdiotINC]

@@patrickortiz2898 When you are unwell you take medicine to help you recover, but we know that taking more and more medicine constantly even after we have gotten better the side effects of that medictation will only make us worse. Fossil fuels are in the same boat, they have benefited mankind in outstanding ways, its not that we should hate fossil fuels but recognise that the benefits they provide us have already been had, and the more we continue to use them the more we are being left with the side effects

[@phyliciajoykloes]

It's sad that profits are more important to the rich than the well-being of the world and all the living. I don’t have all the answers; however, current systems don’t seem to work...

[@gangsta_loki3159]

That’s the capitalist system, profit is the highest priority. The system must be replaced not reformed!

[@phyliciajoykloes]

@gangsta_loki3159 I think you're right about that. Reformation probably won't push these (mainly) men in power to avoid their focus on profits...

[@ogvidoff462]

That's an idealistic way to look at things where you try to make the problem suit your solution. In truth the solution is clear as day for decades, it's nuclear.

[@grischa762]

Nuclear is much worse in terms of profitability. More upfront costs, more long term costs,more time intensive, ..... Without gov subsidies no nuclear power.

[@blackveganarchist]

@@grischa762 Indeed. It’s great in terms of scale and energy density, but the huge upfront costs even greater support the thesis if this video.

[@Praisethesunson]

Nuclear is only used for weapons. Everything else is an offshoot subsidized by imperial war.

[@talonitex6441]

Just use nuclear energy but no everyone is too afraid

[@Praisethesunson]

Nuclear is a lie told to you so you ignore nuclear weapons production

[@beyondfossil]

There's way too many problems with commercial utility-scale nuclear power and being "afraid" just might be the least of them. That's how bad the other problems with nuclear are. Claiming that nuclear is held back just because people are "afraid" does yourself and the nuclear industry no benefit.

[@Praisethesunson]

@@talonitex6441 nuclear power is just nuclear weapons branded to keep people like you from asking the wrong questions.

[@mickeyg7219]

Nuclear has the same problem as renewables in this context, it's not profitable under capitalism. That's why countries that are adopting nuclear powers the most are countries where the energy sector is state-owned.

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

Nuclear is not renewable there's not enough uranium to go around. Then what do you do camp out on the on the grounds of the nuclear power plant and cover it with solar panels and live in tents and have vegan barbecues?

[@wrath276]

Surely the fundemantal issue is that without the ability to produce a stable supply, renewables cannot compete in a market that requires a stable supply. In the UK we pay milions to renewables not to supply as we have contracted to take all the energy they can produce whether or not the grid requires it or can route it to where the demand is. I understand that most of the time they are more expensive than energy produced by gas. Our energy policy is driven by a government mandated net zero by 2030 policy and as a result we have some of the highest energy costs in the world. This seems to go against your argument that profit driven markets are the problem. Also, on the climate issue, am I correct in believing that the crisis is driven by warming? If so why was the low point of Arctic Ice in September 2024, 24 percent higher than 12 years ago according to NASA? I recall being warned time after time that all the ice in the Arctic would be gone in the summer as a result of warming. What should i believe?

[@Speed001]

Valid questions. I believe, normally the earth would be in a phase of cooling, obviously greenhouse gasses do what greenhouses do. But one is on human time scales, the other is geological. Don't quote me on that though, haven't done research in it.

[@wrath276]

@@Speed001 Can you clarify what "greenhouse gases" obviously do. It is a puzzle to me that 150ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is the end of life on the planet and more than 400ppm is claimed to cause a climate catastrophe. Not much of a margin. Given that life extracted (and continues to do so) all the free Oxygen in the atmosphere from CO2 (when it was one of the main atmospheric gases) should we not be more concerned about the amount of CO2 reducing? Also, I think it is accepted that any possible warming effect of CO2 reduces exponentially as the amount increases. On that basis we can be confident that most of any warming it can cause has already occurred and I personally in my 80 years have not noticed it.

[@liftedspirit984]

We love you OCC! Keep up the good work

[@TheFabledSCP7000]

For the revolution

[@Praisethesunson]

Yes

[@little_threads_of_grace]

Thank you for this educational video, it really helped me understand the financial incentive issues in a more cohesive way. I do wish there was a way to make solar and wind power better, i.e. resistant to hail and not taking up so much space, the rumbling affecting animals and their migration patterns, etc. I can foresee a future of wind, solar and hydro power and a peaceful and clean society, I just wish it were possible in my lifetime.

[@singingway]

If it isn't possible in your lifetime then there won't be any lifetimes of any humans after that. The people alive today are the only generation which can make the change to ensure the future..

[@ArnaldurBjarnason]

Please don't take this video seriously (or the channel). They explain energy markets poorly and use the poor explanation to come to incorrect conclusions. This is just some weird anticapitalist propaganda. The Nordic model is the way.

[@Praisethesunson]

Your lifetime? China has done it in less than 15 years.

[@77gravity]

14:10 the analogy between electricity resellers and grocery stores fails, because a grocery store has to ship the item, store it, keep it cold and clean, and throw away unpurchased food when it expires. The store also needs to be located in a place convenient to the customer, and pay rent and maintenance for the premises. An electricity reseller does NONE of these things, it simply skims a profit off the top. It provides nothing but billing.

[@factnotfiction5915]

Yes, electricity distributors don't maintain poles, wires, transformers, connect new homes/businesses, ensure reliable circuits to hospitals, or any useful function whatsoever.

[@77gravity]

@@factnotfiction5915 Not where I live - all that is done by a company that does not sell electricity. The resellers do nothing but run some computers. Literally nothing else.

[@erkinalp]

@@77gravity some electricity resellers are owned by distribution companies

[@KasirRham]

Capitalism is the bottleneck. Nationalize energy, do what is needed to stop being burned to death, even if that means shutting down these "markets" and "investments"

[@timbehrens9678]

The worst nuclear disaster happened at a plant built and operated by a socialist government.

[@ScrapKing73]

Canada has some of the cheapest and most reliable electricity in the world, and it's mostly made and distributed by government-owned "crown corps" that are not for profit, and can invest in ways a for-profit venture never would.

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

The power will all be tapped for AI blade warehouses and Bitcoin mining, then Canadians are going to be paying more for their utilities than the United States. It's coming

[@noahh1646]

I work in European energy. Although I don't agree with everything you have argued, you do make some points that will make me think for some time. Good job on explaining the merit-order in electricity pricing. Unbundling of the energy sector was done in order to decrease the cost of energy (through competition), but it has seemingly been unable to achieve this

[@grischa762]

What do you disagree with? I am honestly curious about a different viewpoint.

[@Jeremy-WC]

I was prepared to strongly disagree with this take after listening for 10 minutes but the ending redeems it. While there is nothing to disagree with the fundamentals are the current capitalist global system and infrastructure can not run on renewables simply because our system requires continuous growth. What you fail to mention is oil is an incredibly dense energy source that we have over a 100 years of built infrastructure designed to run on. Every barrel is the equivalent of 5 years of human labour and it can be tapped almost instantly. this means our society with oil currently has 182 billion people worth of work produced each year and that is what is producing the minerals and providing the energy to build solar and wind. While we can't run todays civilization on renewable energy it could still power a great one.

[@johnfox9169]

You seriously and irresponsibility neglect 4th generation NUCLEAR POWER. I fully support every renewable available, but I believe we MUST construct the NEWERgen power plants. Hopefully FUSION energy matly someday become viable 😊

[@Psi-Storm]

The concepts are nice but that's all. There is no company that builds them and especially not at a fixed price that guarantees the "promised" cheap production. The US has none left, EDF in France (Europe's last) is about to stop all international projects that aren't in the build phase yet.

[@muhammadjoshua7464]

China is investing billions in Fusion energy every year. We might see it comes into reality in a couple of years.

[@Praisethesunson]

That's Cope. Nuclear power is a lie so you ignore nuclear weapons production.

[@Praisethesunson]

@@johnfox9169 nuclear power is a lie so you ignore how nuclear weapons are made

[@PhillyPinkStan]

@@muhammadjoshua7464 Fusion energy is 20 years away and always will be.

[@KanonenBengan]

What about a carbon tax/fee? Making them pay for the costs of removing their co2 emissions from the atmosphere. Hopefully, it eats into their profits enough for them to switch over to renewable energy.

[@00PlPu00]

Good luck making sure the entire world is onboard and that no one successfully lobbies against it.

[@crazydrifter13]

I wait for videos from this channel... And from Not just bikes etc too.

[@funkynoidle2funkiness532]

Batteries!

[@ihatebalrog]

Yeah, you lost me with "ecosocialism" - I grew up in the USSR, I think we can live without the greens now running gulags.

[@_Tp___]

so you'd rather the ultra wealthy to run the gulags instead? got it 👍

[@waichui2988]

That is not a failure of renewable energy. That is a failure of the US energy market structure, a failure of society. The market is set up to disadvantage the newcomers. China is making renewable energy work for them. This kind of thing has happened before. Mass production was one of the most important technologies of the 20th century. Americans implemented it; Europeans never really did. So Europeans were at a great disadvantage. You better reform your energy market to make renewable energy work. Otherwise, the US will have the disadvantage of high energy costs.

[@TheFabledSCP7000]

People still say that they believe in the market, and I have to wonder what world they live in

[@Irilia_neko]

They like lie 😉

[@ArnaldurBjarnason]

I live in the same world as you. I am however not willing to engage in self deceit to fit some pre-determined narrative about capitalism being the source of all bad things in the world. Renewables are already earning huge amounts of investments and when energy storage solutions mature, they will completely out-compete archaic fossil fuel energy production.

[@Praisethesunson]

Charles Koch is an actual capitalist and he has deliberately crushed your cute assumption about renewables being profitable doing anything to threaten his business​@@ArnaldurBjarnason

[@Praisethesunson]

@ArnaldurBjarnason Charles Koch would appreciate your laughable ignorance in his interests if he cared you exist.

[@TheFabledSCP7000]

@ArnaldurBjarnason did you watch the video?

[@gregmckenzie4315]

Thank you for this video. You havre demonstrated that capitalism is not compatible with life on Earth. And your emphasis on conservation is very helpful.. We can't use the language of the power oligarchs to solve this problem. We need a different way of thinking. The power barons will lose their minds in anger and attacks whenever they hear any talk about conservation. That is why we need to focus on transforming our society into a much lower energy approach. We meed to power down. The good news is that this will be the quickest, cheapest, healthiest. and the most just and peaceful kind of society we could transform into. Shouldn't we consider conservation?

[@daveferger9947]

I did hear you say once that we need to reduce consumption. Did you cover the phenomena that when more power is brought online demand for it follows? Which means adding renewables has only meant more overall consumption.

[@Psi-Storm]

You have to differentiate between primary energy and electricity consumption. Electricity consumption will go up with people switching to electric cars and heat pumps. But they are more efficient. They consume only around 1/3 of the primary energy the fossil options need. Also just building more fossil energy plants doesn't increase demand, each plant then just runs below peak, or the oldest least efficient plant no longer runs at all. The increased demand comes only when the price drops so low that new products become viable to produce there.

[@frisbeegrrrl5331]

This is it, exactly. WE NEED TO REDUCE OUR CONSUMPTION! Just like building more roads never alleviates congestion, bringing more (clean) power, is just increasing consumption. We need actual policies that are enforced to regulate and reduce production/manufacturing and consumption. We have too many things, and they simply go to waste - it's a disgusting consumption cycle. We need to shift from the capitalist economic exponential growth towards an as needed, dare I say socialist, model. Another commentor noted that human needs should be publicly owned and regulated (energy, water access and use, agricultural management, health care, etc.). We need to somehow move away from capitalist greed. The rich are just doubling down to increase their already record profits, and our emissions are up higher than ever, when we have already proven that this overconsumption is what is destroying the world as we know it.

[@frisbeegrrrl5331]

@@Psi-Storm I get what you're saying. But we still need enforced policies in place to address a decrease in our general consumption.

[@daveferger9947]

@@frisbeegrrrl5331 TY for the support, another commenter hasn't seen that graph that I think we both have. The one where demand keeps rising w/ supply. And if you think of all the population who still has no electricity, demand could chase supply for the foreseeable future.

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

All correlation like the false CO2 warming correlation just as the environment warms before CO2 levels increase, so demand increases before new energy supplies are created. You've got everything upside down in your mind

[@junedtan2]

TL;DR version: greed. Renewables are profitable, it's just not THAT profitable vs fossil. The fact that power is relegated to private sector is fatal IMO, since profit is the primary objective. On the other side of the world (the other "we"), power belongs to the people and managed by the government (see China as example) and is part of what constitutes sovereignty. So it's not viewed as business but existential and national security. Watching this from Indonesia, where our power utility company is state-owned and almost always operates at a loss year in year out.

[@NonchalantWalrusParty]

We need to end capitalism before it ends us

[@LuisAldamiz]

So true!

[@ArnaldurBjarnason]

Start by ending anti-capitalist misinformation, and then reconsider if that's actually the solution to your problems.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@ - What?! Definitely the problem is Capitalism (short term profiteering via predatory exploitation of people and Mother Earth). Even Greta Thurnberg realized that as she matured (and got cancelled as result).

[@Praisethesunson]

​@@ArnaldurBjarnasonWhy are you supporting capitalism when you don't own any capital?

[@nathandoherty7743]

He says: "Why renewables can't progress in capitalism" Immediately followed by: Subscribe to this part of the page for NO ads. Needn't see the rest of the video anymore

[@benmcreynolds8581]

We should utilize Nuclear energy as the backbone of our power grid. Then we can use alternative energy in collaboration with that system. The more I've learned about our power grid, the more I've learned that modern nuclear energy options is our best option. Molten salt reactors, LFTRs, Gen 4 reactors, Thorium Reactors, Small form reactors. Utilizing our advanced technology, Improved engineering & material science. Utilizing our greater understanding of safety & well made designs. We have so much more advanced computer technology & robotics that can be used. It feels like even tho tons of advancement has occurred with engineering designs, safety measures, etc. It still doesn't matter to most people. It's like most people are ingrained with a natural negative response when talking about nuclear energy. It's a bummer because i truly believe that our best option for our future is to start utilizing Modern advanced nuclear energy options in our electrical grid. It's just proving to be challenging to get politicians to get on board. We need to build systems that redirect & collect any rain water a area receives rather than dumping it back out into the ocean. We need to bring the Beaver's back! We should have adapted our systems to work cohesively with our ecosystem. We should build Desalination plants. I know they are energy intensive but fresh water is so important. We could power these plants with nuclear energy. We should already be doing this. Doing this will really allow places to be much more energy independent. Less reliant on fossil fuels. They'll have efficient, stable electrical grids and the rest of the grid could experiment with alternative power sources, power desalination plants, etc. We need to heal from the trauma of our past. See & learn that those things only happened solely from Us not understanding what we were doing when it came to nuclear energy at the time. We didn't have advanced enough technology, material science, engineering, safety measures, understanding of how to go about everything, etc. This source of energy will greatly help the world improve towards the future and lowering emissions. More than anything else could, while also providing a very stable electrical grid system. Currently we have alternative energy options but the majority of our grid is powered off of fossil fuels and emission producing sources of energy. We will be so much better going forward commiting to modern advanced nuclear energy options. Did they outlaw electricity or oil, coal when things went wrong in the early days of those fields? No! They kept going and understood things usually are bumpy and difficult in the beginning and kept going even tho those sources negatively impacted our environment. A huge issue is government BLOCKING any sort of progression from happening. We'd be lucky to see the slightest projects approved or finished with-in the next 100 years.. It's very annoying to see how much we have gotten in our own way when it comes to improving or advancing certain things. Instead we let fear, money, man made "required legal processes" Stop us from doing anything other than wind, solar, oil, natural gas, damming our rivers, mining for minerals... It's very frustrating because we should be able to use all these options in collaboration. If we actually wanted to improve anything. That's what we need to do and stop letting so much potential get blocked from ever occurring in the first place.. It's really irritating. I wish certain people didn't make this so "complicated and difficult" Why would any reasonable person want to block progression? In my opinion it's been irritating that our society has taken this "it's up to each individual person to make a difference" approach. When that just plays off of people's emotions. This issue is so much bigger than individual people. We need countries/states to get on board. It's the only way we can make even the Slightest difference. We've already waited too long. Everyday is a day wasted & we haven't even made a dent in improving our situation. The fact that Desalination is so energy intensive but fresh water is so important.. What If we dedicated nuclear energy to be the main energy option to run these energy hungry desalination plants?? Idk why we aren't already doing this anywhere we could...? We are being extremely too slow, too inactive to even make the smallest dent into our climate issue and our energy issues. It's honestly getting really frustrating. I thought we would be more motivated than this. More active than this....?

[@Praisethesunson]

Nuclear power is a lie sold to you so you ignore that nuclear only exists as an offshoot of nuclear weapons production.

[@gabrieleboracchi7411]

Ok, but what about the energy stocking techniques? like pumped water or batteries? would they solve the profitability problem?

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

To achieve net zero also means electrifying everything From heating, transportation and industry. Not only making clean electricity.

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

We have SEEN in 2019/2020 with *(-)10% GLOBAL fossil fuel consumption decrease during the Lockdown,* that it had NO effect on CO2 levels, that we can cut 10%, or 30% or starve, freeze and die at 50% *it is PROVEN will have no effect on CO2 levels!* So Climate Tax is a SCAM! [The Gaslighting of America: How the Elite, the Authorities and the Influencers Deceive the People]

[@Praisethesunson]

@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Explaining that other stuff would have made this a 3 hour video

[@kingofbengland]

You can do heating and most industry with electricity right now. Land based transportation can largely be electrified; planes and ships are harder.

[@velisvideos6208]

A very interesting video. The fundamental reason why renewables aren't profitable is that the power they produce is mostly second rate. They don't provide power when the users need it. From the system point of view solar and wind are more expensive than the boilerplate cost, because backups or significant flexibility of use are required. These aren't free. And, the higher the share of wind/solar, the harder the problem gets. Socialism won't fix it either...

[@joelpettlon9650]

He doesn't take into account batteries and other storage, the price of which has been continuing to plummet. Overproduction of renewable energy + storage is cheaper than coal, gas, or nuclear at this point so that selling by time of day problem should decrease drastically.

[@Objectified]

Nuclear is the only option that is scalable and doesn't require the massive external costs and dependencies. People who attempt to lump nuclear in with fossil fuels are either uninformed or zealots.

[@thomassharp7989]

@@Objectified nuclear is clean, safe, and should be part of the transition from fossil fuels, but renewables will play a bigger role than nuclear in zero carbon power in most markets. My favourite video on this is from Engineering with Rosie: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fpCXaH-Ne6Z6bMk

[@snaggy13]

Though strongly hinted at, you did not address the fossil fuel lobby's power to block the expansion of renewables. I don't know if you need wide-ranging eco-socialism.

[@daniellarson3068]

Renewables require storage or backup. More baseload nuclear plants are needed to curtail greenhouse gas production. Just have the government build and operate them

[@runeaanderaa6840]

This is how the wind power distaster in Norway is. In 2023 17 TWh of wind energy was produced. Private households consumed 43 TWh. This means that only 40% of electricity consumed by Norwegian homes was covered by wind power. It is virtually nothing.

[@jckrielesq]

I kept waiting for you to point out the elephant in the room... then you didn't?! The energy market stuff was GREAT but you completely glossed over that this is rooted in an engineering problem, the market's volatility as you said reflects the generator's volatility. Hydroelectric dams and geothermal never have issues selling energy, but solar and wind do, the reason: we can't store much energy. It's that simple, this isn't some capitalist problem, it's mostly an engineering problem reflective of the core issues most renewables have. If you want to fix this issue, stop pouring money into wind and solar farms just because they fit some green aesthetic. Increase power storage and build capacity that can dynamically meet demand. Obviously, if you add generators that spend half their time producing nothing, they lose to gas, which can ramp up production instantly. This isn't some capitalism issue; look at any communist country; they all used fossil fuels. I'm going to pop this at the end here, but ngl "renewables are the cheapest" in the intro was really misleading in framing. You should have shown lifetime costs after factoring in profit loss due to volatility in generation!

[@00PlPu00]

It is a capitalistic mode of production that demands energy as it pleases to maintain production 24-7 for profits instead of producing in accordance with the natural availability of these energy sources. The demand itself is tied to capitalism in very meaningful ways. If it was for home and basic needs only we'd be fine with the storage solutions we already have. I speak as an engineer.

[@Ninjaananas]

The economy needs to be democratized. It is illogical to thing you can have democracy when the economy is still atistocratic.

[@MrYOTOSTAR]

Nationalize energy production asap! Some sectors dont need to be profitable but just work

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

All renewable energy projects are private corporate for profit projects milking the workers for fake carbon tax subsidies, when there is no carbon-free form of energy solar panels take more fossil fuels to produce and distribute and install then they generate in their entire short inefficient lifespan.

[@jimysk8er]

Fossil fuel companies should not be allowed to do stock buy backs unless they delist those stocks permanently. Completely halt the increase of number of shares starting right now. Those who own shares will see values climb to a peak and then no longer be able to buy shares.

[@erkinalp]

Wouldn't they do the same thing via share splits/merges? You couldn't ban that.

[@jimysk8er]

@erkinalp per my comment. Halt the increase of share quantity. You can ban anything. They won't because they fear retaliation or losing value in the portfolios. They absolutely CAN

[@whydoIneedAchannel2024]

Even if it was profitable, just building more renewable energy sources or general ones won't mean nothing while we (the imperial core mostly) constantly increase the consumption like crazy (thinking just eg. of the current "AI" craze, that is killing ALL goals fast. that is just ONE business branch!) - that is even without touching the topic of construction, materials, maintenance, impacts of all forms of power generations.

[@TheFabledSCP7000]

He talks about that A lot

[@whydoIneedAchannel2024]

@@TheFabledSCP7000 yeah, I know. In general. Still. My point was, if this videos was a standalone (which they all kinda are at first), then without a systemic change renewables mean nothing.

[@swademcYT]

The solution to renewables is on the demand side. The challenge is to shift demand to times when renewables are productive. We can shape demand by using storage assets like hot water systems, pool pumps, EVs, home insulation & air conditioning, and other utility scale storage in ways that make sense in the market (buy low and optionally sell high). Create demand and the suppy will come.

[@julianyerger133]

Congratulations, you missed the point. The price swings that shift profits from renewable (inconsistent) to fossil (consistent) power are caused by over and under supply of electricity, because we don't have anywhere near enough hydro or battery storage. If they were cheap enough to build, merchant batteries would buy power when cheap and sell when expensive, equalizing prices so solar farms make more money. Battery prices have fallen a lot, but they're still too high for that to work, so the market is sending a signal that the grid doesn't need more renewable power. It already has an oversupply much of the time, and power is being curtailed, or thrown away. The optimistic perspective is that these periods of cheap electricity are subsidizing battery and green hydrogen from what would have been solar profits, but the depressing reality is that even with these subsidies, the storage market isn't growing fast enough. That's why the renewable transition is faltering, and profitability is limited. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH STORAGE. It's not because of capitalism, it's not because of inefficient markets, it's because renewables are intermittent, and this has been the obvious problem ever since solar and wind energy was first captured. If only someone had predicted this... One of Many Predictions: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jGOuf6SiqrVrg5I Nuclear energy has been and will continue to be the only way to solve the climate crisis. If governments had put a fraction of their renewable subsidies into building proven nuclear projects, even at $3-4 per watt, we would be well on our way to solving climate change. We would be making steady progress instead of playing a smoke and mirrors game of manipulating the market. Unless there is an order of magnitude drop in storage prices, which seems physically impossible, renewables will ADD TO and NOT REPLACE fossil fuels. EDIT: I need to address this video's main point, which is that government should invest in a lot of renewable energy and earn a low but still positive 2-5% return. That is wrong because if enough renewables are built, the returns will not be positive. When parts of the power grid reach their maximum capacity, the new solar farm has to pay for expensive upgrades so they don't crash the system, and if the whole system has too much energy, they or other renewables will be curtailed. If governments kept blindly laying down solar panels, those panels would essentially never be connected and never generate power, a complete waste. For an illustration of what government overbuilding looks like, see Chinese high speed rail (HSR). HSR is great and should be built in the US, but China built way too much of it. Some lines have very low ridership and lose billions per year, so the rail operator is heading towards bankruptcy. People still travel on those routes, but they travel on slower trains because HSR tickets are too much. Setting aside construction cost, the lines are losing money because they cost more to operate in employees and maintenance than people are willing to pay for the higher speed. Chinese citizens were taxed to pay for HSR construction because once the line was built, the benefit to society was supposed to outweigh the cost of operating the line, but that has been proven wrong. The money was simply wasted because the government built too much. If governments adopted the tactics promoted in this video, the same thing would happen in the energy markets, and since the massive losses would ultimately come from tax revenue, everyone would be poorer.

[@dnoordink]

That's the point of all these net-zero zealots - their whole ideology is anti-human. They want the end of our current civilization, and everyone poor (or worse).

[@michaelrch]

No. You missed the point. Also, nuclear is 5x more expensive than offshore wind (even worse vs onshore wind and solar). Replacing fossil fuel energy with nuclear (even if you could finance the tens of trillions in build costs) would mean energy costs going so high, they would tank the economy. For reference consider Vogtle in the U.S. or Sizewell C in the Uk. Both about $10 billion per GW of capacity. That would mean $13 trillion to replace the U.S. CURRENT 1300 GW energy capacity with nuclear. And that's before you account for any economic growth or the gigantic additional load that will come from electrification of transportation, heating etc. If you think it's fantasy to imagine de-commodification of the energy sector, that's nothing vs the wild delusion that nuclear can possibly solve the climate emergency. Oh and that's before the small matter of timing. New nuclear takes about 15 years. And that's if you already have the workforce and supply chains. Which do t even exist in China where they have all so tried this plan, and watched it fail. We don't have 15 years. We need clean energy to replace fossil fuels immediately. Fortunately solar and onshore wind can be built in months or a 2-3 years for larger projects. So please stop with the simplistic nonsense about nuclear. It's over. If it was ever a candidate, the window closed a long time ago. As for the reason for lack of investment, you didn't even notice the point of the video. It's that the profit motive will not attract private capital to a clean energy transition because it's a much less profitable business. The product is cheaper so turnover is lower. The barriers to entry are lower so margins are lower. So private money will go elsewhere because the returns are higher elsewhere. In contrast, if the public sector led the rollout, that would provide cheap energy to consumers and force private companies to invest because the expensive dirty energy they currently love would be completely uncompetitive and would become unsaleable.

[@EricMeyer9]

The OP is correct. Nuclear is the way. Reply guy is using first of a kind prices and ignoring system costs. Build the same reactor over and over and prices decline rapidly. Vogtle 4 was even 30 percent cheaper than 3. These plants generate 24/7 ultra low carbon power for 100 years.

[@michaelrch]

@ Hinckley C is not first of a kind. Its current cost is expected to be about $50 billion in 2024 prices. And it will have taken at 7 years to plan and 15 years to build. Sizewell C will be ~$45 billion and won't be built until 2040, so probably 2045. Nuclear is the only type of generation that is getting more expensive over time. And that's ignoring the complete lack of engineers, skilled construction workers and operators. It will take a generation to train these people which means that even if the government decided to make it happen, we couldnt start any major construction schedule until the mid 2030s at the earliest. Meanwhile China just constructed and installed more solar in one than the entire stock of solar in the USA. And that will be up again this year. Indeed it had a huge nuclear roll out planned starting in 2013, and it has been scaling that back every year for the last 4 years as projects overran and went over budget. Flogging nuclear is completely bananas and detached from reality. I'm sorry if renewables, storage, smart grids etc are more complicated, and you want a nice simplistic solution, but the simplistic solution is a complete fantasy.

[@stijn2644]

​@@michaelrch Yeah if there isn't any new build in 30 years, everyting is expensive. Nuclear can be cost competitive, but right now it (sadly) is not in the EU and US.

[@susango539]

Wow you made very good points. Your video gives me a very good new perspective of this topic. Thank you very much.

[@ttopero]

Understanding the energy markets is very challenging, so I see why most people just ignore them & why most viewers won’t recognize the issue that they are & why it’s not cheaper for electricity even as we add more lower cost electricity. I still had to review the market section several times to get a less muddy understanding without fully getting it-but I applaud the effort to make a video diving into it!

[@ArnaldurBjarnason]

The market section in the vid is nonsense. Renewables can't both be cheaper and have a worse return on investment. Also, if renewables really were cheaper, some people would just invest in it (as many are doing). I think he just made the market section confusing to misdirect from the truth. The reality is likely that renewables have a worse ROI because they are so intermittent and the generation is synchronized. Energy storage is the real solution to this but OP doesn't mention that because it goes against their eco-socialist anti-capitalist narrative.

[@ttopero]

@ I think the fact that renewables are priced lower has a direct effect on the ability to make the profit margin of hydrocarbons. I was wondering about storage too. Seems like an important component-still can be institutional size so I get your point. I don’t know enough about OP or ecosocialism yet, but I’m definitely open to hearing other explanations for the energy market-from diverse perspectives.

[@Praisethesunson]

​@@ArnaldurBjarnasonIf you weren't so poor you'd know why solar is wonderfully cheap but not great at generating ever greater growth in profits.

[@georgesomeone7725]

Jevons' paradox. In the North Sea seaborne wind farms are being built to power oil rigs, renewables are being used to make fossil fuel extraction more efficient. I've studied this stuff my whole life, the problems are more intractable than is generally accepted. But it's worse than that. Carbon emissions are only one symptom of human ecological overshoot, even without climate change the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes industrial civilization inherently unsustainable. I said 30 years ago: "The thing that solves climate change will be climate change". Civilization will ultimately collapse due to a confluence of pollution (climate change, endocrine disruptors etc.), resource depletion (Limits To Growth) and cascading systems failure due to the increasing complexity and consequent fragility of the systems we rely upon (Collapse of Complex Societies). Also, Kaczynski was right. I agree that capitalism is untenable, but so is communism or any other economic system that relies on financial abstractions. Humans aren't as smart as we think we are, if we use abstractions like money we believe in the abstractions more than we believe in the reality. Money isn't real, it's just a story our species tells itself to organize society and manipulate the behavior of individuals to better serve the economy. Cultural reality is an illusion, only physical reality matters. Trying to solve climate change and the other problems our species faces is like trying to commit accounting fraud against God. Me, I'm an optimist: I think it's worthwhile to head for the hills and learn how to grow food. If there's any future for humanity it's radically decentralized, low energy and post-industrial.

[@quannernoble4505]

So in other words, capitalism can't save us from capitalism.

[@davecooper3238]

Renewable seems to be working in the U.K. Scotland often generates more that it needs from wind alone. This can be backed up their nuclear. Pump storage and grid batteries. Octopus Energy has a system that includes customer solar and PowerWalls. Australia also has as company that also works with domestic solar, PowerWall setups. The same as Octopus they can, at times of peak load draw from customers PowerWalls.

[@williamlohrmann2021]

As a renewable insider, I really like your videos. I also enjoyed the same interview about renewable returns... that said, I think you have some misunderstandings: how the market operates, how infra is financed, and the insane scale of what is needed. I am 100% on your side, I also want a better word (and fight for it every day), but I also understand the contracts, counter liabilities, and grid constraints. Yes, it's too slow and we have to do more, but the reality is the problems don't go away by banning money. Even in eco-socialist Eutopia, it's 100% still going to be about exactly the same questions: how can we do this efficiently? Is the asset being used? What happens if it fails? I live in Imperial periphery and have done extensive deals in very poor parts of the world. Asking a place like Tanzania to follow the Chinese is just not possible, for many reasons. If you are interested, I am happy to take the time and explain. The more we can engage people with real solutions, the more we can push real change. Please feel free to reach out to me if you want to talk.

[@SamFigueroa]

Yeah because Norway has such a big problem with renewable energy that their grid is basically one of them with lowest carbon emissions in the EU. Bro have you seen how much hydropower they utilize?

[@wwav9921]

Ai takes so much energy it’s not funny.. we’re using more and more energy. Any additional energy is used for growth not efficiency

[@Irilia_neko]

It's how this world works.

[@GrantGerdau]

Completely misses the point of why renewables don’t work especially as baseload power. Doesn’t mention nuclear unless I missed something. This video demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of how energy grids work.

[@StaticCollapse]

Planet of The Humans by Michael Moore is also a great documentary going over this same subject

[@TrogdorBurnin8or]

POTH is ridiculously dishonest, and it wasn't made by Michael Moore, he just financed its publication after voluntary-human-extinctionist Jeff Gibbs shopped it around for years. Our problem is the lack of political will to decarbonize, and to break the natural game theoretic problems of coordinating decarbonization.

[@TheGeorgeous]

Remove corporatism from energy production

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

The $84B Biden 'Renewable Energy' slush fund, that Bernie voted for, was immediately TAPPED by Pentagon for $30B to build tactical nuclear bunker busters "and for other purposes" [Defense Weekly} There were NO AUDITS. *That $84B has already vanished.*

[@Objectified]

No. Renewables are a promising source of energy that may work well in some areas, but you have completely and likely intentionally mis-framed the obstacles to adoption. This is yet another in a litany of social media content that attempts to blame "capitalism" (not actual capitalism, just whatever bogeyman you want to call and blame on capitalism) and market when the actual picture is far more complex. There are massive costs associated with transitioning 'everything' to renewal energy, and if your goal - your ACTUAL goal - is to devise a scalable, safe, clean (relatively to the cost of producing renewable components) energy generation solution capable of meeting the coming massive increases in global energy demand while dramatically reducing the environmental and climatologic impact of generating that energy, nuclear is your solution. "But nuclear costs more than renewables!" Not really. Not when factoring in the massive external costs and complexity of renewables. And the more nuclear is adopted the lower its costs become. And if your goal is to provide a stable, safe, clean, environmentally beneficial, scalable energy generation solution, not including nuclear in the mix because it may or may not currently cost more than renewables is absurd, dishonest, or simple zealotry.

[@00PlPu00]

So why aren't the market and capitalism adopting nuclear?

[@Rippedyanu1]

@@00PlPu00 they are, nuclear power is looking to triple worldwide in the next 15-25 years. And that's not including SMR deployment in the 2030s onwards.

[@00PlPu00]

@@Rippedyanu1 Oh, so there is no problem at all. All solved. No climate change!

[@Mason265]

The lack of profitability of renewable energy sources may be stopping incumbent fossil fuel companies from investing in renewables, but it is **not** stopping smaller newer companies from moving in and undercutting fossil fuel generation. They'll earn less profits by doing it, but their product is also lower cost, so upstarts with less capital can move in and chip away at fossil fuel dominance. Batteries and demand shifting are going a long way to improving their profitability too, so as things progress we may see more market forces pushing newer players into this space. Fossil fuel usage is shrinking in lots of Europe right now, not just as a percentage of energy usage but also in absolute terms.

[@Kakaze1]

For an in-depth look of the half of this video, please read Andreas Malm's Fossil capital.

[@jasperwegge644]

The problem lies more in how the price is determent. Right now we still use the same marketdynamics for setting prices as with a central production system. While we should've changed this system to a decentral production system at least 25 years ago. It is unfair for renewables to, who are dependant on weather conditions, to compete with other production systems who "just need to Flip a switch" or can "adjust the output".