Renewable Energy is a Scam

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

100 Replies to “Renewable Energy is a Scam”

  1. He is actually right on the title and everything else he is claiming. The rest of you, im sorry to say, have been told Lies, thorium is the most abundent fission material og them All, uranium 235 is one of the scarsest and also the most expensive one to use as fuel, were talking in the top 10 og the rarest materials on this planet, and just the fact that you cant make plutonium for bombs with it, really says it All.. we will never run out of thorium as It litterally is everywhere, even mayby in your own garden…. Its all politicall, and of course we should All treat out beautiful earth with way more respekt, but windmills and solar panels is just a illusion, so the rich that have invested in the idea have a chance of getting there money back, and its a disgrace how they bring the govenment in so they can pour taxpayers money in to fund's to rescue the windmill factory's From complete bankrupsies, over and over again.. we are al just naive fools, being lied to everyday… But this man is actually telling the thruth.😁

  2. Nice… get your sources right and dont do this shit of telling people meaningless crap as if its the most important thing… an idiot with a pedo face should be the description of your channel

  3. “Nuclear waste is 100% contained and doesn’t leak out into the environment”

    If only that was actually true.

  4. you can't blame wind turbines for killing birds … I hit at least 4 a day on my way to work at 5am .. I'm surprised they haven't gone extinct already the dumb cunts

  5. I like your channel, but I work in wind industry and you are 95% wrong, please do your homework better:
    1. In my 10 years of experience (especially in Germany, and around the world) I have not seen one single bird killed by any component of a wind turbine
    2. Especially in Germany we have the bat sensor which makes an ultrasonic bubble around the turbine and the bats will not get close to it
    3. When you build the wind farms you do not destroy the habitat, you only need the road which exists and a hardstand of 40m by 30m only for the installation period, after that you make it back how it was, and 70% of cases they build on agricultural land, not in the wild, you don’t have grid connection to sell that energy
    4.The blades are made from fiber glass and not aluminum
    5.Before you install a wind farm you check the place min. 2 years with temporary high pools to gather wind data so the wind farm is working optimally minimum 50% of the time to be profitable, but in general they work 75-80% of the time at max production
    5. Vestas and Tesla made a lot of hybrid parks, wind, solar and batteries which will become the new standard for wind/solar parks
    6. They are trying to use as much as possible materials that where recycled
    And I could go on and on, regarding your safest renewable energy from nuclear please educate yourself about the depositing of nuclear waste it is international scandal, UK just threw away in 50’s in the ocean and you cannot reuse the toxic waste it is not powerful enough to make the reaction, I didn’t hear this much nonsense from the era when Ceausescu ruled Romania, which was called communist propaganda, you disappointed me so much that I don’t believe anything that you speak of, I am sorry that you have wasted my time

  6. Bro, have you been in Africa? They have some of the most strict laws about environmenta for ex if you want to build a road close wilderness, you don't know what you are talking about, it is taking years to approve a wind farm there

  7. Clearly you did not visited Germany, cut trees to install solar or wind energy? You get minimum 1000 euro fine if you throw a cigarette leftover in wild, bro you screwed up heavily

  8. Is your mustache on crack? Nuclear safer than solar or wind or hydro? Send me the number of your dealer he must have some good stuff, or you are crazy

  9. Although I agree in your call for nuclear power, your bit on renewables is peppered with grossly misrepresented facts.

    Sort yourself and that womb-broom out!

  10. So much good news: The City of Houston sources a whopping 92 percent of its power from wind and solar energy.

    "Most of the City of Houston’s power — about 88 percent of it — comes from wind turbine operators, while the rest is sourced from an Alpine, Texas solar farm that spans 350 acres."

  11. Wind fun facts:

    –Iowa gets 36 percent of its electricity from wind power.

    –In 2015 wind generated 23% of Ireland's average electricity needs.

    –In Europe, In 2017, a total of 15.6 MW of wind power was installed, representing 55% of all new power capacity.

    –Wind power blows past coal in Texas

    — 2018, 74.6 percent of Scotland's gross electricity came from renewable sources, mostly wind.

  12. Scotland generating enough wind energy to power two Scotlands
    . Good job Scotland.

  13. The ratio of dislikes is due to dogmatic ignorance.

    They had it right back in the 50's. Nuclear is the best option for power generation. Environmentalists have destroyed the planet by hamstringing nuclear and forcing us to rely on fossil fuels. Now it's CYA time, hence the hysterics.

  14. A biased piece of shit video! Sure EVENTUALLY radioactive elements DO DECAY! However, our planet has been here 4.5 billion years and it hasn't happened yet! How do you like MY bias?

  15. We were told that Nuclear Power would make electricity too cheap to meter! I don't know about you, but my bills are outrageous!

  16. Nuclear reactors save lives and are renewable?

    Guns actually reduce crime rate?

    Facts don’t care about my feelings?

  17. I’m pretty sure iceland generates a higher percentage of renewable energy than germany as almost all if not all of icelands energy is renewable. It is also most from hydro dams or geothermal turbines which means it is highly consistant

  18. Energy in energy out,
    So no matter what you do the carbon footprint works out about same and the savings if any will take decades, ,
    For example the Energy that goes into making electric cars is more than the conventional cars,
    not only that you need electric to power the thing and who’s to say that’s the electric power for the car doesn’t have a carbon footprint because it does,
    Remember Energy in energy out

  19. Battery is the problem yes. Renewable energy is NOT a scam however, I find that quite disagreeable in your title. That being said, the energy it provides is most definitely not the most reliable due to lack of storage. It is better used as a supplement to whatever energy source is available. I believe nuclear should solve our energy needs, with renewables adding on to fix the world's energy crises.

  20. If people were really worried about the Earth ending because of carbon emissions there would be nuclear power plants everywhere.

  21. batteries are already cheaper and are more efficient than a gas turbine that they use for peaker plants. Do you have shares in the oil industry? I find your politics on this interesting.

  22. Dear thoughty2,
    as a student who has just finished his bachelors in environmental sciences at Wageningen University, having followed courses on renewable energy transitions and nuclear energy particular, I would like to pinpoint a few things in this video. Firstly I agree that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy have significant environmental cons in the sense of harvesting rare metals, ecological drawbacks such as birdkilling, and disrupting marine and wildlife in offshore windparks. Furthermore and the inherent intermittency of these technologies currently still pose substantial drawbacks. However, in contrast to what you mention of nuclear energy reactors, the actual scientific debate as to whether they are viable renewable option has never been about whether they are safe (at least in my country), although that is also relevant for managing public opinion/acceptance. Rather, the drawbacks of conventional nuclear reactors are the hazardous waste, which is largely overlooked in this video, but lowly radioactive waste parts of the resultant waste need to be permantly cooled and maintained in special facilities for between 100-100000 years in order to become harmless (which is longer than existense of mankind thus far), so apart from the risks connected to transport and maintenance of the waste, you can imagine the economic costs it bears overtime, not to mention the reliance of significant subsidies by governments in order to be built, as well as resulting negative profit margins, and the expected construction time being between 5-15 years of intensive labour costs. Then lastly there is also the aspect of uranium reliance which is not only expected to last a mere 80 years before depletion at current usage, as well as the geographic sites of mining being limited, which can pose a political limitation if you become dependant on that resource. Etc. In the video you rightfully so mention that thorium surpasses most of these drawbacks in theory, however, since few to none thorium reactors are currently actually up and running as of today we cannot say for certain that it will do as much good as is foretold yet. My point being, that indeed renewable energy sources have drawbacks, however, current forms nuclear reactors neither form the holy grail either as is posed in this video, the title is too harsh and only assists in further polarisation in the climate -energy debate and I hope antropomorfic climate change deniers do not use your video as proof for their mistaken view. Apart from that it was an interesting video.

    Kind regards,

  23. climate change is real, its a natural cycle of the earth. geological core samples prove it. humans dont affect as much as we are told. not to say that we don't have any affect on it but bottom line is. climate change is going to happen now matter what we do. we might sluggishly push it along.

  24. Hey dude the moustache looks great ,all u need is an old British army outfit and u could pass for a character from Dad's Army.
    U even act/speak like the characters.
    #i💖that show.

  25. Tells that to the Fukushima residents, they won't be able to move back to their houses for centuries 👺👺👺🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️

  26. Humanity exhales 3,400,000,000 tons of CO2 every year. That is 3.4 billion tons of CO2 exhaled by humanity annually. If Al Gore, Obama, and the rest of the Alarmist Cult truly believe CO2 is warming the planet and the cause of Climate Change, they all need to stop exhaling CO2 immediately to save humanity and the Earth. If they don't, they are most horrendous liars humanity has ever witnessed.

  27. Isnt that 2 minute turbine for nuclear, thought to be used to power emergency pumps (i know Chernobyl it was a thing looking to be tested)

  28. I have been visiting enough windmills to say they don't kill birds or bats ?. newer seen a bird carcass under one of them.

  29. With France this makes sense, considering radioactivity was discovered in its current understanding in France by Marie Curie.

    You know, it almost sounds like you are trying to get the world to regress and stop using clean energy altogether. While there are considerations, dangers, and challenges to overcome, the cost of doing nothing will kill everything and everybody. Politicians and lobbyists who say that we haven't impacted the climate are either complete morons or Christian fundamentalists who think we haven't enough time left on Earth to even worry about it. People who believe as such like to call the other side hippies, when in fact the other side is full of realists. There are mountains of proof that we are affecting the climate. For example, notice all the storms ravaging almost the entire continental US for months now? Rewind 15 years ago, did the same thing happen? No. Another example, notice how Greenland is losing ice at a highly accelerated rate? Wasn't like that 30 years ago. And a third example, ever notice how summers are woefully more intense and winters are markedly milder? Wasn't like that before the turn of the century. While I do agree that wind probably won't be enough, nor will it be feasible to do so; That doesn't mean that there are not more practical and powerful options. Imagine for a minute that life on Earth is all that there is. That despite the enormity of the universe, this is the strangest planet because it has life. Now think, if the only intelligent species that ever existed killed all the life that there was ever. How immensely sad would this be?

    Now for the real scam. Ever notice how gasoline is sold as "unleaded", and how diesel fuel is sold at very low lead concentrations? Ever wonder why? Many years ago, the oil companies used lead in gasoline as a stabilizer. The primary constituent of regular fuel is a molecule called heptane. Which is C7H16. Now heptane has an enormous amount of potential chemical energy, thus its use as a fuel. However, reciprocating engines (that which is in your car) compresses a fuel-air mixture. When you compress a gas or in this case a mixture of gases, but the volume remains the same, the pressure rises. This pressure rise generates a lot of heat when you talk about a 15:1 ratio common in low compression engines. Under this stress, the highly volatile and reactive heptane has a tendency to react violently and suddenly with the O2 it is mixed with. This would usually happen before the piston is in the correct place, forcing it in the opposite direction, bending and shearing the crankshaft, and thus ruining the engine. Mixing lead with this fuel retards that reaction, thus allowing you to compress it further and harness a much greater amount of the potential energy from the combustion. For a greater total energy gain. So years ago, big oil sold their products with lead contained within. This allowed them to sell much more of their product, thus better bottom lines. At the same time, evidence was mounting that this practice was harming the ecosystem. As everyone knows lead is highly toxic. Despite all the evidence and in contrast to the consequences, the oil companies lead a campaign to discredit those who spoke out against them and try to inform the public (incorrectly) that there was no danger. Eventually, someone listened despite the oil companies efforts, but what would have happened if this had not come to pass? We may have very well killed ourselves already.

    So let me ask you something. What is more important, some rich assholes bank account, or potentially all life on Earth?

  30. Nuclear power plants are dirty bombs sitting on your own soil. What a great idea. Thank God Bin Laden decided not to attack one because he thought it was well defended. (It wasn't)

  31. I heard that in UK they are burning Californian wood to make electricity (plus huge amounts of CO2), but because the wood is renewable, the crazy Greenies think this is a good sustainable idea.

  32. Dude , what are you trying to say ?? , in any topic you can find bad things . That video just saying what bad . Thers are 2 times good things then what this unsmart guy say aboute sustainble energy , then what the hell this video trying to say ???

  33. a questian mate we know that coal is bad but burning other materials is an option as wood or garbage bags. did you know that the cleaning process of the smoke thats created from burning is really amazing. bag filters for example can remove up to 99% of the So2 created by burning garbage and thats one cleaning process out of many in a power heating plant. look it up its very intreasting =)

  34. Who wouldn’t put up a turbine, you get more when there shut off than when there going , lovely jubbly Rodney !

  35. I’ve been working in wind for 7 years. Haters are always gonna hate 🤷🏽‍♂️ i love my job and we power millions of homes. End of story.

  36. "Their only byproduct is nuclear waste, but unlike byproducts of all the other forms of energy production, this is 100% contained, and doesn't leak out into the environment."

  37. So the world is dead basically and we can’t save it. Why because money and greed has taken over the world and Mother Nature has had enough of the disease and is killing it

  38. LiFTR is meltdown-proof not just because of the plug. the fuel is active and "burns" only if it's in liquid state (melted) in the reactor. when a breach occurs, the material that comes out quickly cools off at the room temperature and turns solid and inactive. also, by solidifaction it "fills in" the hole in the reactor/plumming, much like blood does.


  40. The problem is certain popular social media sites promote this climate change nonsense.. CLIMATE is cyclical thats proven yet ignored… The only genuine reason the climate appears to be warming is is mearly better logging methods.. its only a reason to increase taxation.. wake up public your told what to think and dare you question or think outside the box… TRUE FACT the uk has a plastic mountain now we have started to charge for single use bags ????? Reason …. The old bags got recycled back into new bags !! Simple… My plastic straws appear to be injuring penguins and squirrels bollo**s… This guy is talking sense I have worked in renewable energy for over 10 years as an engineer and beleive me the public believe what they are told !

  41. You have to match the wind resource to the demand. For example, in California, the wind comes on hot summer days as the central valley heats up the rising air allows wind to blow over the passes to replace it. The wind resource almost perfectly matches the air conditioning load, so it is very valuable power.

  42. 13K people are a) still really afraid of nuclear energy or b) didn't finish the video or c) don't believe in climate change!

  43. with this video you got my sub btw. it's about time we start to go nuclear again!
    (have seen quite a couple before but never bothere to sub)

  44. D'ah ya think? Every piece of equipment for renewable energy is made in a foundry or out of toxic materials. Even the cars we think are environmentally friendly take a mountain to manufacture..

  45. 13k dislikes! I guess some people out there don't like the truth being told to them regardless of who it's intended to help

  46. You missed the whole reason for the green movement. #1 to confiscate more money from the major economies of the world through carbon taxes. #2 to help leftist marxists feel superior to the rest of us.

  47. Im an electrical engineer, and I totally agree with this video, we should invest in making nuclear safer and it will be a win-win-win all the way. The answer is Thorium reactors

  48. Solar and wind is an ideal solution to energy problems with no downside until every one is using it, then that will become our greatest problem.

  49. Oil tankers have a life expectancy of 30 years. They are energy hogs to build and recycle. They use low grade sulphur rich fuels and have high emmisions that are not regulated. Their fuel consumption is measured in galons per meter. We must look at both sides of the equation. What should be done with spent radioactive waste? Renewable capture will become more efficient with time.

  50. a well made solar panel doesn't last 20 to 25 years, it will lose +/-10% in efficiency in 20 to 25 years. i think this video is more of a scam.

  51. China did make whats called a "Pebble Bed Reactor" that produces no waste and by design cannot meltdown!
    Very interesting about Thorium and India!
    You never even scrutinised hydro electric or geo thermal energy!!!

  52. climate change wont kill 150 million people this century – the policies that governments enforce will kill 150 million people this century.

Leave a Reply

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