Why Supposedly ‘Green’ Energy is the Global Scam that We All Fell For


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 “Why Supposedly ‘Green’ Energy is the Global Scam that We All Fell For

  1. Or at least wins a lot safer than a nuclear meltdown from a power plant look at Russia a whole entire City's contaminated because they're already ation Fallout I think I'd rather live with the wind power then live with nuclear

  2. I am not sure where this account as got his numbers from but for Germany wind turbines are assumed to kill 100.000 birds per year. In the same time house cats kill 100.000.000 (100 million!) birds per year. (The numbers are in the billions in the US – a quick google search reveals several sources)
    Stopped watching after that nonsense.

  3. How much fossil fuel is required to transport and assemble a wind turbine?
    What kind of energy is required to maintain a wind turbine?
    What is required to decommission one?

  4. If the best climate change has to throw at us is to kill 150 million of us then fucking bring it on!
    We are BILLIONS! Fuck you climate change! We'll take that and scream for more! 🤣

  5. Fuck nuclier look at whst happened at chenoble in russia its still leaking radiation 30 years later no one can live with in 250 kolometers of it a d look at fukashima in japan its still leaking radiation in to the sea and a lot of the soil is contaminated

  6. Theres no such thing as human caused climate change its all a scam and a hoax and a lie the sun control's the climate like it has for thousands of years and will for thousands of more years

  7. Does anyone have any solar panel brands that they have tried and tested that they can reccomend for me to purchase for my school bus conversion. I will need about 1000 to 2000 watts. Thanks

  8. Biggest unanswered question no one wants to answer…Where will the power come from at peak times? If we go pure solar and battery what happens every night when people get home from work, turn on the A/C, plug in their car, and turn on the TV. There is no way renewables can cover that type of peak power draw on the fly. Every battery powered car on the road adds to the already stressed power grids. Massive increases in electric cars will crash the grid at peak times. There will be power outs, line fires, and many people with dead cars when they need them the most. Part of the answer would require batteries in everyones garage that could hold one charge for their car and would top off at non peak times, maybe with a solar cell to help in the back yard. But how big an impact would such massive battery program have in waste, cost in materials, and pollution produced in their building? Also long range vehicles could not work on battery power (think big rigs moving material across the country). Add in police cars, taxis, long commutes, and traffic jams that would increase as people's cars died while waiting in traffic. Electric is a step in the right direction but it is not the only answer at this time. Problem is people need to think it through rather then just jump in with both feet.

  9. Nuclear is quite safe but not as safe as they make it out to be. I don't think the death count for Chernobyl was accurately reported by the USSR.

  10. Boomer! Wind turbines kill 0,1% of birds. 58% die because birds are just retarded and fligh in a skyscraper and break their head.

  11. fuck nuclear. fuck coal. fuck gas. i put up a ground mounted solar array and built my own powerwall. called gulf power and politely told them to go fuck themselves… and here is the best part. I dont even care if its green or not. could not care less. i dont have a fucking bill every month from them. the system will have paid for itself in less than five years. i dont have to worry about outages or rate hikes. and here you idiots are playing the he said she said game with a fucking leash on your neck. doesnt matter what color the leash is. you are still a fucking slave. morons.

  12. You actually only looked into a small part of the process.

    Step number one diesel-powered all of them.

    1) the mining process
    2) the smelting process
    3) the creation of the steel because it's not just one element.
    4) shaping and molding of all the components. Not just a stand but don't forget the gear work and all the copper it takes to create a windmill.
    5) after Construction, which by the way is in China with no Pollution Control whatsoever. They need to be shipped to corresponding countries. More diesel power.
    6) once they hit land they need to be shipped by truck, tractor trailers to be exact, approximately 16 of them depending on height size in sections.
    7) before the pieces get there a giant hole in the ground needs to be dug using diesel operated machines. Filled with cement Andre Barb. Both ingredients are made with a diesel fuel operated machines. Then truck out to the site, with more diesel operated machines. The whole is Doug with diesel operated machines. That is the foundation for the new windmill that's going to go up.
    8) now cranes lifters among other Machinery which are diesel operated are going to be put into place to lift all the heavy components up assemble them to be a one piece B unit.
    9) talking of wind farms. Now you will need a fleet of diesel trucks to go out on a regular basis for maintenance scraping dead animals like birds off of their propellers So they don't create an uneven balance in the system. More diesel power.

    10) now add this to the ocean to create a wind farm there. Now you've got a fleet of diesel ships to go out on a regular basis for maintenance.

    an absolutely no circumstances whatsoever does a windmill pay for itself ever in its lifetime for the carbon footprint it took to create it before its imminent demise. since everything does we're out these windmills will knepp solutely never pay for themselves. I'm tired of stupid ideas. That were supposed to fall in love with simply because we're told to.

    Thoughty2, you need to educate yourself just a little bit better on modern energy alternatives. I'm 2 minutes 10 seconds into your video and you already look like a dumbass. Let's not have this conversation again. By the way love your channel except for this segment

  13. Radioactive waste half life billions of years 100% contained my ass hiccup in a power plant you mean a core meltdown IE evacuate that part of the earth for eternity
    Turn left onto old hickory trees can suck up carbon dioxide and turn it back into oxygen immediately all the time 24/7 nothing can solve radioactive waste the real cause of global warming have a nice day

  14. Trees turn carbon dioxide into oxygen CO2 solved!!!!!!
    Radioactive waste Eternal poison that turns the air the ground the water anything into poison.
    Like a plague anything that comes near it it's poison and then travels and poisons more and poisons more and poisons more nuclear power has been on the planet for 75 years we have already seen a devastating Health effect on the people of Earth f*** you

  15. Green energy is not a scam… CARBON TAXES are 1000% bonafide scams.
    Know you renemy : carbon tax to enslave humanity for the totalitarians.

  16. If this channel didn't exist noone would know how an idiot looks like.
    Thanks for that sort of an important public service!

  17. 2:55 REALLY?
    NUCLEAR WASTE DECAYS FASTER THAN CADMIUM, LED, etc..? LOL
    I'm guessing you made this video for the mentally disabled people? "UNLIKE NUCLEAR WASTE, SOLAR PANEL TOXIC MATERIALS NEVER DECAY"? Are you mad? Nuclear waste decays so slow that it can be said it does not.
    WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MAN? Are you paid by the nuclear lobby to say stupid shit like this?
    Is led radioactive? Can nuclear waste be recycled like LED CAN? 😀

  18. The only scam is that NUCLEAR and PETROCHEMICAL LOBBY is turning real renewables into SHITTY WINDTURBINES just so they could see it fail. And you are helping them for some reason.

  19. Glass buildings kill more birds than windmills, do more research.
    You're obviously heavily biased and have some predetermined opinions you're cherry picking to support. Very Disingenuous 👎

  20. The big problem about solar power plants is that the solar panels also act as a solar stove. That’s right. A solar stove. Because of the high radiant heat that is generated off of the panels, they can cook anything that flies and lands on to of the panels. That’s right. Daffy and Plucky Duck 🦆 are going to be roasted alive because the panels will look like a large body of water and the ducks 🦆 will think that it is and land on it.

  21. Climate change is a bunch of baloney.
    Man cannot control the weather. God does.

    It is man's sinful pride which leads him to beleive he can.

  22. I'm sick of these marxist climate change lies. CO2 is a trace gas amounting to point zero four percent. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential for life on this planet. The marxist useful climate change idiots want to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere while they complain that forests are disappearing. How stupid can they be? There should be at least five times as much CO2 in the atmosphere. At that level the earth would be a lot greener.

    What's actually going on is power happy UN communists and globalists want complete control over your life. Nothing I can think of says "I own you" better than taxing the very air you breathe.

  23. The 97% is bullshit! 10 schmucks who led the conference agreed, surveys that went out were ambiguous. Consensus is not science, it is politics and funding.

  24. Hey, did you know that there is only 1 “clean coal” plant in the United States? And technically it’s an “experimental” plant that is quite small.
    ….just saying…

  25. It won't cost 4.2 billion on top of their energy bills. Windfarm running costs are a lot less than coal fired power stations – you don't need coal.

  26. The off shore wind turbine argument ….sunk. The impact on the fish? Whaaaaat? As soon as I heard that, I clicked the down thumb.

  27. I just now subscribed to more notifications because of this excellent upload!
    Please watch this scim through. It shows FACTS ABOUT CLOUD SEEDING, AROESOL SPRAYING,GEOENGERNING, WEATHER MODIFICATION, WEATHER WARFARE, AND THE WORLDWIDE SCAM ABOUT THE REAL REASON WE HAVE GLOBAL WARMING. There is some very Mysterious secret projects going down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRY9zCBkITI&t=55s

  28. Germans are so dumb. They talm about cleaning up the air but they're shutting down all their nuclear reactors.

  29. Nice. I have been wondering the waste comparisons with this green energy. Im a car guy and i know after a while the Tesla vehicles electric vehicles in general, about 10 years all those batteries get tossed into our environment and replaced with a new set of batteries repeating this process. We have so mucn batteries from electric vehicles and now plus this video

  30. As this tech is some what new we dont feel it yet but wait about 10-20 years and the new problem to solve is how to safely dispose of this green tech waste products

  31. Nice job with all that propaganda, you forgot that nuclear waste can also be used to build the border wall, and you forgot to mention that wind Mills cause cancer. But I have driven through wind mill farms and didn't see one dead bird.I can't believe that you are making it sound like a good thing that nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs are a good thing.solar ,wind,hydro, Geo thermal are intended to assist other means of power so we are not dependant on nuclear, and coal solely.But thanks for the republican bullshit.💙

  32. We've seen an increase in Co2 but is it all bad? Co2 increases, so does photosynthesis in plants. They then capture the carbon and lock it into the soil and release the O2 for us to use. It's called the Carbon Cycle. What's wrong with 400ppm? If it's too high where should it be?

  33. If I hear the bullshit about solar panels being a massive issue as toxic waste gona blow a gasket. All the ppl I seen bring this up give no numbers at all or numbers from the 2000s. Todays's panels contain eather no, or small traces of any dangerous elements. It's bullshit pushers like this that caused the biggest kick in the balls to the electronic industry… lead free solder. Expensive and absolute shit, cracks, needs higher temperature, does not flow as well, needs more, higher temperature flux. Seen so many electronics in wich all I had to do is redo some solder joints/bake the board to fix intermitent/broken contacts caused by cracks in the solder. And don;t even get me started on dendrites…

    Left or right, pro or con, they all fling mud and spew bullshit when it comes to climate change. Nuclear power needs more love, solar and wind is like hydro, not always viable and geographic dependent, 1 thing is for sure, fossil fuel is in decline dues to price of extraction constantly going up, same as non fuel demands for it. Everything has pros and cons, yet ppl keep geting suckered by agenda pushers that exagerate and minimalize them in order to get what they aim for.

  34. Your face looks like an eighties porn stars pubic hair!… There I said it, but I do love your videos. Please grow a beard or shaver. Apart from that, keep up the good work.

  35. So what happens when we've mined all the thorium, uranium and other nonrenewable fuels? Where does our energy come from then?

  36. Tesala's invention, of pulling power from the earth, was and still is the greatest idea ever conceived by man.
    It's only drawback is that the government and the rich and greedy bastards couldn't find a way to charge the population for something that was FREE.
    It wouldn't surprise me if, governments aren't using that very technology today and we don't know about it.
    Concealing it behind all the power plants, substations and miles upon miles of wire just to make it look as if power was produced the way we've been taught.
    I believe that God created this power source for man and the DEVIL, through the greedy bastards, took control of it.
    If you think about it, it's probably a very simple and easy way to reproduce the system, but, the masses have been brainwashed and dumbed down through education as to, not comprehend the way it works.
    I know this comment probably sounds, crazy and out in left field, but God give us a brain and freewill to be able to do it.

  37. these nuclear plants will get old !!! uranium mining leaves toxic waste ! earthquakes , etc will create devastation like fukushima . then there's the waste disposal !!!!!!!!!!

  38. Excellent vid, but your basic premise is flawed.
    We need more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less.
    CO2 scare is the greatest "scientific" fraud perpetrated on mankind, bordering on suicidal insanity.

  39. CO2 as a source of climate change doesn't even pass the sniff test let alone any science tests
    .
    The amount of CO2 in the air is less than one half of one tenth of ONE percent i.e 0.04% of the atmosphere.

    To put this in a human understandable context imagine that the amount of CO2 IN THE ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE, was equivalent of a car journey from Lands End in Cornwall to John O'Groats in Northern Scotland.

    Lands end to John O'Groats is 1407 km
    .
    Of the total world CO2 the 'experts say 4% of this is due to humans.

    4% of 1407 km which is 56.28 km

    The UK contributes 3% of this.

    3% of 56.28 km is 1.6884 km

    1.6884 km =1688.4 metres, which is 168840 cm which is 1,688,400‬ mm

    The population of UK is 65 million people. Your personal contribution, your 'carbon footprint' they always bang on about , is 1,688,400‬ mm divided by 65 million which is 0.0259 mm on AVERAGE
    .
    (Experts also say 30% of this is immediately taken up by the planets natural systems, biological and geological. I won't do that calculation.)

    So your contribution to travelling from Lands End in Cornwall, to John O'Groats in Scotland , the ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE UK is about one quarter of the diameter of a human hair (average 0.08mm).

    Emma Thompson/Prince Harry/ etc fly thousands of miles a year to tell you and pensioners, who cannot afford to heat their homes, to worry about their carbon foot print
    .
    They just want your money and they get that by adding subsidies for wind farms and solar panels which only the rich can afford to invest in.

  40. been saying this for years…there are no free lunches, and you can't get more out of a system than you put into it

  41. You could easily harness fusion energy. Dig a deep hole in the ground. Hollow out a spherical cavity. Fill that cavity with a few million gallons of water. Lower a fusion bomb into the middle of the cavity. Explode the bomb. This produces a million cubic feet of 5000 psi steam. Direct the pressurized steam to the surface where it turns a turbine to generate electricity. Three months later, when the pressure has decreased to 100 psi, fill the cavity with water and explode another fusion bomb down there.

  42. no surprise that our young Tory would come out against Renewable
    Power. Here’s the thing I don’t get though. And we see this same thing here in the States. The argument in favor of Renewables isn’t just a Climate Change at all. It’s one of the Simple Reduction of Pollution.!! Of course you Brits don’t seem to be At All focused on this side of the debate because You All Smoke 2 or more packs a day. It was like that over here too 50 years ago . But these Monstrous Coal or Bunker Oil-fired power plants (like that Huge One in N. London) not only dump 1000s of Tons of Greenhouse Gasses into the atmosphere but they are also like 100,000 black soot-belching train engines starting up on a cold, rainy morning, EXCEPT CONTINUALLY. The technical terms for what I’m talking about are NOx and SOx (like in Dr. Suess) and also Particulates, AKA Pollution. And also Ozone. Ozone not only is a dangerous greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere; it’s a quite corrosive chemical down here on Earth.

  43. germany is at the forefront of the renewable end of energy production, they also have the largest fuel bill. fuel poverty is an actual thing in germany. crazy

  44. You got plenty of hate on this one. The US per capita is the highest C02 polluter (not China) and the US doesn't agree with you regarding Iran's production of nuclear reactors not resulting in nuclear weapons.

  45. Speak the party line without thought or concern that you are doing something worthwhile (speaking the truth). Dirty coal feeds our plants on earth and they have been of late flourishing. Funny that plants are conservative and arent falling in line to their supposed liberal truth. Fear not is the best avice to Liberals. Even if you see a huge hand through your telescope in outer space edging a dangerous rock away from colliding with the Earth. Be calm and a conservative to deal with things. God does care and will intervene when he sees that it is fitting to.

  46. Up from jan.15, 2020, so-called blackouts are forecast for Germany. The only question is how many black start capable power plants are there in england, because england would also hit a blackout, whether in the EU or not, it is one complex system

  47. I believe "climate change" is a real thing, BUT we cannot do anything to stop it. Climate change has happened in the past. i.e. the ice age, way before humans were around; it's all up to "mother nature". The Earth will correct itself, if and when it is needed.

  48. The Viedio can be summarized as follows:
    Thoughty2 presents the best known half-truths about renewable energies.

    Of course, renewable energies also have disadvantages, like all other forms of energy, which is why an assessment must be made.

    But the whole video is from front to back only against renewable energies. Facts are misrepresented, the context is omitted, comparisons are missing, approaches to solutions besides storage are not addressed at all.

    So if you want to inform yourself independently about renewable energies, you don't need to watch the video. I can't really imagine that with the title.
    For people who want to confirm their prejudices, the video is perfect. So boomer you can look at it without problems, your bubble will not be destroyed by it.

  49. Climate Change is Real. Man has Little to do with it. Green Energy works. Just not Commercially. On the Residential level it can work.

  50. So far you've only mentioned Solar and Wind. But what about Hydro, Geothermal and Tidal? A combination is the only thing that will work. And still we haven't solved the problem of nuclear waste.

  51. He´s right… we´ve been stold (stolen and sold). China builds toxicity into our products. So, we Americans pay for our poison dagnabbit!!! Boo you Climate Change Criers and deniers alike, but thorium is the answer and its use is banned (in the amount and manner needed) in USa. Seriously though, the worlds climate has never not once… remained the same. Yes climate changes, every second the sun shines and wind blows; climate will be changing (see the Great Year). Not a National Emergency though. Don´t be Deceived and quit frightening the kids and the ignorant.

  52. If all blacks disappeared from the Earth the effects would be nothing but positive unless you work in the prison system.

  53. People are naive. "Climate change" will happen even if there were zero human beings. Climates change, that's what they have done for millions of years. All you people will walk straight onto the train cars, again.

  54. What a load of old codswallop. Not a whole lot of sound rational 'thoughty' goes into your rhetoric pal, just a heap of emotive agenda driven nonsense, "killing birds" "duke of Wellington", blah blah blah, emote emote emote. A whole lot of flowery speech and hand gesticulation might make you a reasonable orator but adds nothing to the veracity of your one sided claims.
    Here's a heads up: cat's kill a couple billion birds annually. What about window strikes, about a billion per year. Let's get all emotive and insist we remove all sheets of glass.
    But let's face it pal, this is not about your caring about the bird life and more about your love of red herrings.

    Bitching about the efficiency of solar panels that have no running carbon output? Bahahahaha, the automotive engine is about 25% thermally efficient at best and there's billions of those polluting things on this planet. That means that at least 33 MJ of energy is lost into the atmosphere as waste heat in every kilogram of gasoline, along with 2.3kg of CO2, not including all the other pollutants and carcinogens (gasoline energy density: 44MJ/kg). What about diesel you say, 30-35% efficient? Bigger polluters than gas engines.

    Building a power generator of ANY kind takes a "huge" (actual word should be 'relative') amount of energy. The bigger the generation plant, the larger the initial energy needed to build it. The larger the carbon footprint. So is decommissioning it. Pure logic.
    Pro rata? You simply failed to mention any comparisons to even know. Let's see your facts, something you're very scant with.

    Claims of clearing wooded land as a necessity to building solar farms is just ludicrous. Just build them in the deserts.

    "The total world energy usage (coal+oil+hydroelectric+nuclear+renewable) in 2015 was 13,000 Million Ton Oil Equivalent (13,000 MTOE) – see World Energy Consumption & Stats. This translates to 17.3 Terawatts continuous power during the year.

    Now, if we cover an area of the Earth 335 kilometers by 335 kilometers with solar panels, even with moderate efficiencies achievable easily today, it will provide more than 17,4 TW power. This area is 43,000 square miles. The Great Saharan Desert in Africa is 3.6 million square miles and is prime for solar power (more than twelve hours per day). That means 1.2% of the Sahara desert is sufficient to cover all of the energy needs of the world in solar energy."
    We simply don't have to build these in the Sahara either but any number of sites around the world. Claims of needing to clear land is just agenda driven rubbish. Transmission lines travel thousands of miles around the planet with current fossil fuel technologies so that''s a moot point also.

    It's been estimated that in just 71 minutes the Earth is hit by enough solar energy to power the world for one year. If we could exploit just one tenth of one percent of this energy we would have more than enough energy to meet the world's total energy demand.
    Of course some forms of transport cannot use solar or battery, and until such time that they can adapt hydrogen or something else as a realistic alternative to avgas then here's a thought: reserve use of most fossil fuel burning to where it is absolutely needed and not what ahole energy corporations want. Pretty simple logic when you look at it without agenda bias. Enough with this all or nothing mentality.

  55. What a load of old codswallop. Not a whole lot of sound rational 'thoughty' goes into your rhetoric pal, just a heap of emotive agenda driven nonsense, "killing birds" "duke of Wellington", blah blah blah, emote emote emote. A whole lot of flowery speech and hand gesticulation might make you a reasonable orator but adds nothing to the veracity of your one sided claims.
    Here's a heads up: cat's kill a couple billion birds annually. What about window strikes, another couple hundred million a year.
    Let's get all emotive and insist we remove all sheets of glass.
    These figures I've used, which come from the same study as your figures shows wind turbine bird strike paling in insignificance to every other form of bird death but you simply failed to mention that fact. Instead you use emotive rhetoric such as "bird mincers". Ones got to wonder why you would be selective with your facts, why you think lying by omission is somehow not lying at all.
    Let's face it pal, this is not about your caring about the bird life and more about your love of red herrings.

    Bitching about the efficiency of solar panels that have no running carbon output? Bahahahaha, the automotive engine is about 25% thermally efficient at best and there's billions of those polluting things on this planet. That means that at least 33 MJ of energy is lost into the atmosphere as waste heat in every kilogram of gasoline, along with 2.3kg of CO2, not including all the other pollutants and carcinogens (gasoline energy density: 44MJ/kg). What about diesel you say, 30-35% efficient? Bigger polluters than gas engines.

    Building a power generator of ANY kind takes a "huge" (actual word should be 'relative') amount of energy. The bigger the generation plant, the larger the initial energy needed to build it. The larger the carbon footprint. So is decommissioning it. Pure logic.
    Pro rata? You simply failed to mention any comparisons to even know. Let's see your facts, something you're very scant with.

    Claims of clearing wooded land as a necessity to building solar farms is just ludicrous. Just build them in the deserts.

    "The total world energy usage (coal+oil+hydroelectric+nuclear+renewable) in 2015 was 13,000 Million Ton Oil Equivalent (13,000 MTOE) – see World Energy Consumption & Stats. This translates to 17.3 Terawatts continuous power during the year.

    Now, if we cover an area of the Earth 335 kilometers by 335 kilometers with solar panels, even with moderate efficiencies achievable easily today, it will provide more than 17,4 TW power. This area is 43,000 square miles. The Great Saharan Desert in Africa is 3.6 million square miles and is prime for solar power (more than twelve hours per day). That means 1.2% of the Sahara desert is sufficient to cover all of the energy needs of the world in solar energy."
    We simply don't have to build these in the Sahara either but any number of sites around the world. Claims of needing to clear land is just agenda driven rubbish. Transmission lines travel thousands of miles around the planet with current fossil fuel technologies so that''s a moot point also.

    It's been estimated that in just 71 minutes the Earth is hit by enough solar energy to power the world for one year. If we could exploit just one tenth of one percent of this energy we would have more than enough energy to meet the world's total energy demand.
    Of course some forms of transport cannot use solar or battery, and until such time that they can adapt hydrogen or something else as a realistic alternative to avgas then here's a thought: reserve use of most fossil fuel burning to where it is absolutely needed and not what ahole energy corporations want. Pretty simple logic when you look at it without agenda bias. Enough with this all or nothing mentality.

    PS, your back half of you video concerning nuclear power is nothing more than speculation, and if for example a battery manufacturer went down the path of the 'what if's' and 'what MAY be around the corner' you would have shredded their argument for the rubbish it was.
    What you're doing there is no different than coal lobbyists trying to sell so called HELE. Nuclear is only as safe as it's last accident. Humans not only make mistakes but are also inclined to do nasty shit on purpose. Hence the name terrorist, which is not only a conspiracists denial tool but also a very real thing. As long as there's greed there will always be imbalance and as long as there's imbalance there will always be 'terrorists'. Not many 'accidents' are needed to blow your stats out of the heavy water. Fearmongering? Maybe. Realist? Absolutely.

  56. As a secondary energy source we should be investing in tidal and wave energy. Reliable, predictable, clean and no need for rare earth materials

  57. Nuclear is the only way, if we sirously want to bring down co 2 imission, and if we build the molten salt reactor, using thorium as a fuel we, ok I didn’t watch the video to the end, so i will stop right here.

Leave a Reply

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