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.

Maurice Vega

100 Responses

  1. No, NUCLEAR Energy is a fucking scam. We’re currently creating the killer of the human race, an energy source that we CAN’T dispose of for millions of years.

    Nuclear Reactors are fucking horrible, it’s the single most hazardous thing ever created…… If you disagree well, you just don’t understand how dangerous it is… Me(at age of 18), My Mother(At age 40), Grandfather(Age 60), Cousin(Age 19), separated by two different bloodlines, all had Thyroid Cancer. We live less than 100 miles from the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania….. Gov’t “official” death toll- 0. Chernobyl- 36. Fukushima- 0. LIES.

  2. Nuclear energy is the technologically advanced means of producing energy. Wind and solar are better suited for residential use.

  3. This guy is saying that wind turbines are dangerous to birds, but if global warming gets bad enough, the damn birds will die anyway…

  4. Turbines do not kill birds in the amounts you are describing. The negative pressure envelope is the the cause of a number of avian species deaths – this change in pressure causing damage to the airsacs in the birds bodies, but the numbers are not nearly as high as you have said. The fact that you say the blades are the cause is absurd. You need to do way more research Thoughty2. If lessening the carbon footprint is the pay off then it is not a scam. The entire point of renewables is to lower CO2 emissions. This is your worst video.

  5. Fuck you, Thoughty 2 (WTF kind of name is that?!) I unsubscribed from you after watching most of this video. Take your conservative points of view and stick them up your constricted, myopic ass. We're done.

  6. 0:13 1 million homes? Surely not 24/7/365. What percentage of current demand will it meet annually? And £4.2B – what percentage is that of what is spent now? These numbers mean literally nothing isolation like this.
    0:35 No, they haven't. Look at the basis of the "97%" claim and you'll see it's completely bogus.

  7. He forgot to mention the real cost of nuclear vs renewables. I'll do it for him. A nuclear reactor cost about 10 billion USD to build with the supporting infrastructure and have a predicted lifespan of about 40 years. This is not the whole picture because nuclear reactors use fuel that is quite difficult to extract and process. Then we should add the over 1000 workers needed for one nuclear reactor. let's be optimistic and make the assumption these people are willing to work for median salary of 2000usd a month. That's 1000 x 2000 = 2 million usd for salaries a month (very optimistic). Over 40 years that makes 480 x 2 ~ 1 billion. Now add the price of fuel and decomissioning of the reactor and the price can easily reach 15 billion usd for a reactor producing 1000 Mega Watts over 40 years.
    Now let's assume we're willing to invest the same amount of money in solar. The price of 1watt capacity right now is about 1usd( this includes the solar panels, invertor, installation and some battery storage). So for 15billion usd we are able to install 15 billion watts capacity or 15 000 Mega Watts. Let's assume now that these systems will produce electricity half of the time at efficiency 50% of the nominal and we have 15000 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 3750 Mega watts of real installed capacity.
    In conclusion we can get about 4 times more energy per dollar if we invest in solar rather than nuclear.
    If we assume that at least one of the nuclear reactors we build will malfunction and meltdown the price of nuclear gets exponentially higher.

  8. Although your videos are massively entertaining, they are extremely long. It’s not easy listening to almost anybody banging on about a subject for over 20 minutes in a Yorkshire accent.
    You need to keep them below 10 minutes mate

  9. 97% of scientists believe in human cause climate change – BOGUS!!! Wind turbines – to start them up they run on DIESEL!!! Not to mention they are god darned fugly. In Scotland they are absolutely trashing the natural beauty of the area not to mention the wildlife. The only people getting anything out of these monstrosities are the people making and installing them and the corrupt politicans who are being paid off to get them passed. Not to mention the billions of pounds it is costing the tax payer to already filthy rich landowners who are being paid rent for these fugly monstrosities to stay on their land. Mmmm like the royal family et al. All this the planet is dying bullcrap is a big psyop. Stop falling for their crap.

  10. Place solar panels in the middle of Antarctic because the middle of Antarctica is always right before sunset.

  11. you want constant source of heat 24/7 for billions of years? then just drill 10 km (6.2 miles) under your feet, Earth core has been burning for more than 4 billion years, and humans tried their best to ignore such power way far too long, blatantly assume that such source of heat can't possibly power anything, for you who believe that stupidity, just find nearest active volcano near you, and throw yourself into the lava, let's see if the lava can power your body into burning matches

  12. Didn't we already a salt/Fourium reactor in California & it failed? Maybe I'm thinking of something other than Fourium. maybe Fiveium?

  13. I'm not all that worried about the planet to be honest.

    It's only man's massive ego that seems to think that we have any major effect on the planet. But does that mean we shouldn't develop new forms of energy? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. We should be developing new forms of energy not for some nebulous concept of "saving the planet", but for progressing our species to the next stage of our development.

    The biggest most fundamental limiter on economic progress is energy and has been since at least the Industrial Revolution (arguably even before, but we weren't really butting heads with this bottleneck until this point). Fusion has the ability to break this bottleneck to the next stage of our development and to the next great bottleneck, whatever that may be.

  14. 97% of scientist believe in global warming is a lie. This number was reached by asking scientist the ridiculous question " Is the climate in stasis ( unchanging ) or is the climate in flux ( always changing). Now since most scientist aren't retards 97% of them answered the climate is in flux. The politically motivated person who asked this question as part of a study that was desperately trying to prove "Global Warming" was real and a genuine threat to mankind. So this person took the answer " 97% of scientist say the climate is in flux " and misreported the finding as 97% of scientist believe in global warming.

  15. I came this video thinking:" If i hear one more person talking about how wind turbines are bad but doesnt talk about thorium im gonna lose my shit" And yes finally someone talks about thorium

  16. Whatabout underground thermal energy, all you need is to drill deep enough holes all around the world. Some say it's expensive, but with scale and competition the cost will be cut down significantly. We turn to the sun for energy, but we have our own sun in the earth center … No need to go too deep, 5km drill anywhere on the earth (not on mountain) will give you unlimited boiling hot water. The is 13 zetajoules of energy down there… No risk, no stupid windmills and solar panel fields… No nuclear explosions….

  17. Idiot. I worked for many years in coal power and the carbon that it burns on a daily basis to power your video camera is huge! Also coal power stations need far more smelted steel to be constructed.
    The bird issue on wind can be addressed far easier than the bird issue that will come if we do not change

  18. "one chinese scientist says, that this kind of nuclear reactor would produce 1000 times less waste than the uranium reactors", wow, thats what i call scientific proof

  19. All this also depends on the " theory " that CO2 is bad … there are opposing theories — which make skepticism even more appropriate . ( if CO2 was " causing run-away " temperature change" .. it would have happened a long time ago — when it was many times higher ) Plant more trees, use local foods / products, worry less …

  20. With the way you start off, It's like you read the summary of students knowledge from a professional teacher. Like we don't make a ton of trash that is toxic. You like dry cleaning? And cars. Lots of toxic stuff needed to deal with it. We actually care if sh!t from a septic system does not mix with our fresh water. Unless you want to make a bunch of plastic filters which require toxic chemicals.
    So this is a fear mongering of electricity or what is your exact point?
    Wind turbines killing tons of animals? Where is the actual proof of the dead animals? Cause cellular phone towers kill a huge amount of animals, techs share pictures of the piles. Something with magnetic guidance in birds that fly at night. Wind turbines make nosie. Birds are supposed to avoid those cause they installed red lights (also on cell towers but not always) But there are some techs that also have been burned by the high-powered cell antennas. Think microwaved hands.
    How about compare more more areas instead of picking what you need to sound right. But you are try to give a boost to nuclear. Clean energy to a point, but has some issues.

    Now talking nuclear, mini nuclear power stations are needed.
    For the waste,
    We need to dilute the spent fuel be just as it was in the ground and then put back in a mined out shaft.

    If we make smaller nuclear power stations it's also less likely to be a catastrophic problem. Security is always an issue cause all those crazy people who want to make a problem and decimate the world. But it's all around us, Denver is twice normal background if memory serves me correct? Flying is 4+ times normal background. Why are people so afraid of nuclear?
    Fear……
    And now we're back to Einstein's relativity.
    Cause it's all relative.
    You don't just pick and choose what you want to believe cause it sounds good.

  21. "Renewable Energy is a Scam?" Sure… right… okay… And the Earth is flat, the Apollo missions are a hoax and the Devils Tower is a big friggin' tree stump. ….. STOP EATING TIDE PODS!

  22. You are a scam. Over Unity is very real. So are liars and thieves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2mpAskFOu4&list=PL6zgbq_Mk28BuklQ-P9b6hVAZ2151DlXl&index=10&t=0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMYo1QlvK5g&list=PL6zgbq_Mk28BuklQ-P9b6hVAZ2151DlXl&index=18&t=14s

  23. Oak Ridge labs had a utility-scale thorium reactor up and running with no issues. The main reason it was scrapped was that the military-industrial complex in the USA convinced Nixon that uranium-based nuclear could and would give us a large leg up on the production of nuclear weapons. Given that push and the fact that the main uranium-based reactors at the time were in California, his home state, he shut down thorium.  Now the USA is essentially giving away the technology needed to build thorium reactors to other countries and allowing them to get a leg up on the USA in safer cleaner nuclear energy with our own technology.

  24. Meh, I live in Canada. 60% of our energy is hydro-electric, 15% nuclear, >10% other renewables, the remainder being various fossil fuels. Fairly good balance all things considered. Meanwhile our southern neighbors (self proclaimed greatest country in the world, as it were) are near reversed. 63% fossil fuels, 19% nuclear, the remainder is various renewable. 30% of the energy generated in the US comes from coal, which today is probably the most retarded possible thing you could use for 2 big reasons;

    1- Coal power is monstrously inefficient. The average plant runs at 30% efficiency or less, and even the "high efficiency" plants are barely pushing 40%
    2- A coal power plant generates more nuclear waste than a nuclear plant with the same output……..logic? Who needs that :/

  25. When people talk about energy, they should use numbers. Then you find that, today, we just do not know how to produce enough energy. Ok, shut down nuclear plants, stop using fossil fuel, and many people will suffer. Numbers do not lie. And do not worry about CO2, it is a very useful gas with little influence on climate. We should worry about real pollution, like plastics, SO2, etc.

  26. I agree that the wind turbines can be designed better. But what if some strong earthquake happen that is outside our small minds. I am sure you all know how old is the earth and how old is our science, we can stop pretending that we know everything. What would happen if all nuclear weapon and all nuclear plants detonate in the same time? And how about in 500 years with you and others promoting this. All you need is the right resonating frequency and enough power to say good bye! And lastly i believe you already know that we live in one big capacitor between ionosphere and earth, and we also move around axis,sun, milky way…
    Everything is energy and it can't be other than renewable because you can't destroy energy, can you? So this video is a scam. Please don't make videos like this, you are one of a few i have my bell on.

  27. 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

  28. 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.

  29. 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?

  30. 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! 🤣

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

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

  37. 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.

  38. 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

  39. 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

  40. 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

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

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

  43. 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? 😀

  44. 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.

  45. 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 👎

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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…

  51. 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.

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

  53. 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

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

  55. 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

  56. 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

  57. 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.💙

  58. 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?

Leave a Reply

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

Post comment