If Green Energy Is So Great, Why Aren't We Using It?

  • Published on Jan 16, 2017
  • Green energy is getting better and cheaper, yet we still largely rely on fossil fuels. Why haven't we switched to solar and wind energy yet?

    Which Countries Will Be Underwater Due To Climate Change? - usclip.net/video/1ilC2ODaWSY/video.html
    Which Countries Run On 100% Renewable Energy? - usclip.net/video/SrmsQzRQPPw/video.html
    Sign Up For The Seeker Newsletter Here - bit.ly/1UO1PxI

    Read More:
    What Would Happen If We Burned All The Fossil Fuels On Earth?
    "A new study published today in Science Advances finds that if we burn all of the remaining fossil fuels on Earth, almost all of the ice in Antarctica will melt, potentially causing sea levels to rise by as much as 200 feet--enough to drown most major cities in the world."

    Who's Winning The Battle To Replace Coal?
    "Coal is losing the battle for the electricity future in the United States. Investment in new coal-fired generating capacity has dried up with its share of electricity generation dropping from 53% in 2000 to 34% in 2015."

    Electricity in the United States
    "In 2015, coal was used for about 33% of the 4 trillion kilowatthours of electricity generated in the United States. In addition to being burned to heat water for steam, natural gas can also be burned to produce hot combustion gases that pass directly through a natural gas turbine, spinning the turbine's blades to generate electricity."


    DNews is dedicated to satisfying your curiosity and to bringing you mind-bending stories & perspectives you won't find anywhere else! New videos daily.

    Watch More DNews on Seeker www.seeker.com/show/dnews/

    Subscribe now! usclip.net/user/dnewschannel

    Seeker on Twitter twitter.com/seeker

    Trace Dominguez on Twitter twitter.com/tracedominguez

    DNews on Facebook facebook.com/DiscoveryNews

    DNews on Google+ plus.google.com/u/0/+dnews

    Seeker www.seeker.com/

    Sign Up For The Seeker Newsletter Here: bit.ly/1UO1PxI

    Special thanks to Julian Huguet for hosting and writing this episode of DNews!
    Check Julian out on Twitter: twitter.com/jhug00
  • Science & TechnologyScience & Technology

Comments • 1 870

  • Sven
    Sven 6 days ago

    humanity is coming to an end: soil, water, transportation fuels,...it's all over. make your peace and stop the lies. go with some damned dignity.

  • Gameknight
    Gameknight 6 days ago

    0:20 That’s steam you fool

  • Darren McFeaters
    Darren McFeaters 18 days ago

    We dont have a climate crisis to begin with yet. Grand solar minimum going on we could be heading to a colder climate.

  • Darren McFeaters
    Darren McFeaters 18 days ago

    Renewables arent reliable or efficient.

  • Darren McFeaters
    Darren McFeaters 18 days ago

    Wheres this data on climate change being unnatural?

  • Patrick Weaver
    Patrick Weaver Month ago

    It's not complicated it's quite simple. The fossil fuel industry is a $700Trillion Industry. like you said in this society as a whole we are entrenched in it. That's because those cartels want to keep control over the infrastructure and us... checkout, RT The World According To Jessie Dr. Steven Greer interview

  • Mike Cerretta
    Mike Cerretta Month ago +1

    Bulshit clean energy is always cheaper to build

  • mike peine
    mike peine Month ago +1

    the energy charter treaty is a criminal scam . geothermal , wave and others aren't mentioned .

  • Debartello Escobar
    Debartello Escobar 2 months ago

    You are not a home owner are you guy

  • Shakaama
    Shakaama 2 months ago

    "raising the average temperature of the globe" - the global temperature has actually dropped, polar ice caps have increased, ocean shorelines have been super stable and not rising.

    So your entire argument that climate change is even A THING is a big fat lie. you're what's now called a climate hysteric. but, please, go on with your video. you're kinda cute #nohomo

  • matthew huckin
    matthew huckin 2 months ago

    Nuclear is best.. all that's needed is better waste management

  • Tien Doan
    Tien Doan 2 months ago +1

    The moment you said renewable energy cost zero dollar. You just lost me. Nothing is free in economic.

  • Chirag Mantri
    Chirag Mantri 2 months ago


  • We Would Be Better United

    The countries that run on a lot of oil will not want to change this. Also just happens to be the powerful countries such as the the US, RUSSIA, CHINA, INDIA, ETC.

  • Kapitananime
    Kapitananime 3 months ago

    Fossil fuels work better than Green energy. The false promise of Solar and wind have been greatly exaggerated. Nuclear power needs a revolution as the future of green energy is over sold.

  • Vanessa Smith
    Vanessa Smith 3 months ago

    Bollocks ! Bollocks bollocks bollocks.

  • Pocho Nieves
    Pocho Nieves 3 months ago

    Yes you oversimplified the issue and are biased starting the video claiming that climate change is real as if that's true.
    There is no first world country run running in renewal... because they can't. Ask the Germans... they tried and didn't work for shit. Also believing in climate change is a luxury of first world's leftists. Nobody can't tell China and India to go away from fossil because they can't!!!!
    So yeah this is monumentally out of context... thumbs down.

  • Stan M
    Stan M 3 months ago

    Trump won't allow it !!

  • Ch Pe
    Ch Pe 3 months ago

    Because it's gay.

    • Ch Pe
      Ch Pe 2 months ago

      @Dem epicCreator not literally but the urban slang definition of something being gay.

    • Dem epicCreator
      Dem epicCreator 2 months ago

      Geez I don’t know solar power is homosexual

  • whenindoubt mutemyownmouth

    If a windmill falls down its going to require diesel powered heavy equipment to put it up again. Although passenger vehicles and motorcycles can run on solar but what about construction equipment, city buses, semi trucks? Fossil fuels are still needed for those.

    • bill carver
      bill carver 3 months ago

      The democrats want to do away with all fossil fuels. That means all that construction equipment, semi trucks, and everything we use that burns gas and oil would just be scrap metal. They want everything to run on solar or electric.

  • Roy Lopez
    Roy Lopez 4 months ago

    Fake news!

  • MIKE Mike
    MIKE Mike 4 months ago

    We will never stop useing fossil fuels every retrograde plastic rubber paint and most petroleum based products are made from fossil fuels one volcano errupts it does 20,000 years worth of damage based on current C02 pollution standards

  • George Edwards Vlog
    George Edwards Vlog 4 months ago

    This video doesn’t cover any of the big issues for renewables.

  • chamboyette853
    chamboyette853 4 months ago +1

    Easy answer - The big donors and the American public who believe the mass media stations working for the big donors.

  • Martin Christensen
    Martin Christensen 4 months ago

    Because renewables being cheap doesn’t mean that replacing existing power plants that are already built is cheap. When building new facilities then renewables is highly competitive now.

  • ian steel
    ian steel 4 months ago

    What a croc.

  • Robron Hoodlum
    Robron Hoodlum 4 months ago

    The best energy is when you put a windmill on top of your roof.

  • Varfalameu Agbeche
    Varfalameu Agbeche 4 months ago

    Wall street is making money out of our fears about global warming, CO2 emissions, ozone layers and so forth while we sit here and discuss it. make your own research.

  • Varfalameu Agbeche
    Varfalameu Agbeche 4 months ago +1

    c'mon. we are talking about gigawatts of energy. It is funny to consider solar and wind or other form of renewable energy, even all combined, as a RELIABLE source of energy since again we need gigawatts of it. Well, to my mind renewables are fit for not big local communities whereas megapolis and industrial zones need either nuclear or fusion energy.

    • đeri662
      đeri662 4 months ago

      GW of energy? :) Germany has around 100 GW of solar and wind installed. The biggest problems are diluteness and intermittency, scalability is not one of them.

  • hurc661966
    hurc661966 5 months ago

    Go green no matter what......

    SWOBIZ 5 months ago +1

    Intermittency is an intractable deficiency for wind/solar. Since they frequently generate ZERO electricity, they require 100% backup by reliable fossil fuel, nuclear or hydro power.

    • đeri662
      đeri662 4 months ago

      Or massive amounts of energy storage. Either way this is very expensive.

  • Shawn Sitaras
    Shawn Sitaras 5 months ago

    Pound-for-pound you'll never find another natural resource like oil that employs so many and can be used for so much plastic concrete most of the paints in the world countless construction materials urethane styrofoam coffee cups all those items I just named all have one thing in common they all in one way are connected to oil

  • FalKon2IV :\
    FalKon2IV :\ 5 months ago

    This is stupid

  • đeri662
    đeri662 5 months ago

    Only around 300 nuclear reactors are needed to produce enough clean and carbon-free electricity to cover all the electricity needs of the USA. Doing this, electricity would be cheap, supply reliable and the power grid would be kept stable. As opposed to that hundreds of thousands of wind turbines or billions of solar panels and who knows how much energy storage would be needed.

    • đeri662
      đeri662 5 months ago

      Wind turbines and solar panels last for maybe 25 years, batteries around 10 years. Nuclear power plants last for 60-80 years. I don't want to find out how much this "energiewende" towards wind&solar based electricity production would cost us.

  • J Wing
    J Wing 5 months ago

    This has lots of misinformation. 1 wind turbine = 16,000 solar panels and this video says they cost lots of $$ upfront but none afterward. 1:46 This is a lie. Wind turbines break, catch fire and need to have their blades replaced constantly as they hit and kill birds and get torn apart by high winds.
    Also the reason why we need fossil fuels is because like this video mentioned wind and solar don't always provide energy at their full capacity. In fact Wind Turbines only produce 25% of their expected output as the winds aren't going at all times.
    But more importantly climate change is not as controllable as environmentalist has LIED to us to believe.
    CO2 is the man gas they say we need to cut out in order to stop climate change. Yet all scientist concede that CO2 is only a small amount of the total greenhouse gases that causes climate change. Water Vapor makes up 80-95% of the total greenhouse gases, with CO2 only being about 4% of the total. On top of this man's contribution to the CO2 total is only about 3-4%, which means cutting all human CO2 contributions (including breathing) would not do squat to the greenhouse gas total.

  • Jeremiah Sturk
    Jeremiah Sturk 5 months ago


  • kEy NiGht
    kEy NiGht 5 months ago

    Guys just stop using fossil fuels and switch to green energy. Its not like renewable energy sources generate 11% of the US's electricity and the only way to switch is through massive taxation and crippling of the economy right? Just switch bro.

  • Robin Gilliver
    Robin Gilliver 6 months ago

    Atheists are the biggest problem.

  • James Haywood
    James Haywood 6 months ago

    Nuclear power is the best power.

  • Zach Conklin
    Zach Conklin 6 months ago

    Even if the fossil fuel industry runs everything with there power and money, we can still all of us come together and protect this earth from any harm.

  • marbbridges
    marbbridges 6 months ago

    The reason why they haven't pulled the plug yet because climate change is not real I'm 62 years old if climate change was so bad we would pull the plug back in the sixties and seventies get a grip and study your history

  • SlipKnotRicky
    SlipKnotRicky 6 months ago

    I say let the people who want Renewable Energy to pay for it, instead of voting to spend other people's money......

  • fjandgoob
    fjandgoob 6 months ago

    because you have to go bankrupt for the initial investment, and look at the BILLIONS oblow-me threw away to "green" energy co. solyndra was just one

  • Dutch Flats
    Dutch Flats 7 months ago

    Check with Germany, they've installed tons of solar and wind. Turns out they're now actually producing more CO2 than they did before all those renewables? Go figure?

    • đeri662
      đeri662 7 months ago

      It's because they're closing nuclear power plants and have to use more coal and gas instead.

  • Bill Conger
    Bill Conger 7 months ago

    Sorry but most of what you said is bullshit or fantasy.

  • Ian Cocking
    Ian Cocking 7 months ago +2

    Gen 4 Nuclear, Molten salt Reactors, Sea water extraction of Uranium, Fusion ITER, Polywell,. The Nuclear Elephant in the room can fix Climate change but don't mention the N word. We will jump through all manner of hoops trying to get Renewable's to work and bankrupt ourselves trying. They only half work now because of Natural gas which is a lousy solution

    • đeri662
      đeri662 7 months ago

      @Vincent Robinette Fusion is very ambitious but I think we still have a long way until it gets commercially used. I don't think the conductivity is higher than copper, maybe the current carrying capability is higher. If my knowledge is correct, until now the coils were cooled down to gain superconductive properties. But it's a little hard to have coils at hundreds of degrees bellow zero and millions of degrees inside the reactor, a few meters away.

    • Vincent Robinette
      Vincent Robinette 7 months ago +1

      @đeri662 The jury's still out on nuclear fusion, because it has not come to fruition yet. I am confident though, it would be like decommissioning a fission plant, but without that nasty, radioactive core. The only fuel in the core is what's being fused at that moment, similar to the fuel introduced into the cylinder of an engine. There isn't enough in the reactor chamber for an explosion, or even enough to cause damage to the walls of the reactor. Very safe. With graphene, and nanotube carbon conductors being 10-100 times more conductive than copper, it's rapidly becoming possible to generate the high magnetic density to control the plasma in a fusion reactor. It may not be that far off from now. Don't get me wrong, it's still radioactive in there, but you're only looking at days, before it becomes low level radiation after the reactor is shut down. You are right though, you have to include the decommissioning costs in the total levelized cost of energy. Throwing away a decommissioned turbine isn't exactly environmentally benign, but at least they aren't radioactive. Recycling has as much room for improvement as electrical energy storage. I forgot to mention the urgency of efficient and cost effective recycling. we need to be able to break anything down to its constituent elements and compounds, so they can be remanufactured into the next generation of products. That keeps potentially harmful chemicals out of the environment, as well as reducing the need to mine or extract more.

    • đeri662
      đeri662 7 months ago

      @Vincent Robinette All of the costs associated with every electricity source (capital, maintanance, fuel, decommission, recycling, health costs, energy storage, nuclear waste storage, measures for stable grid operation due to intermittent production etc.) should be included in the LCOE, this would be the only way to compare the real costs. Fusion would be a really nice source of clean power but the question is, when will it be commercially usable and how much will it cost.

    • Vincent Robinette
      Vincent Robinette 7 months ago +1

      @đeri662 You're right on 2 counts. First off, you have to add electrical energy storage cost to the cost of generation. Wind, and solar included. 2. $40 US and $32 US are almost unbeatable. If those levelized costs can be realized, that's slam dunk, home run, touch down, GOOOOOOOAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!! the winner. One other thing you might consider, is the cost of real estate. A nuclear facility will produce MUCH more energy per acre of land than any renewable source. Land leasing is a much bigger factor in the cost per MWh for the less energy dense sources. And, oh yeah, energy storage. When I wrote my last post, I didn't have data on that, so if your data is correct, it's a HUGE capital investment, for HUGE amounts of energy, supplied 24/7. I'm just not sure that will win approval in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident off the coast of Japan. If nuclear fusion ever comes to fruition, that will completely solve electrical energy problems, rendering wind, nuclear fission, and solar largely obsolete.

    • đeri662
      đeri662 7 months ago +1

      @Vincent Robinette There's the problem, solar and wind will probably soon be cheaper than nuclear in most places. But their LCOE doesn't include all the costs for energy storage and other measures to have stable grid operation because of intermittency problems. And this is where it can get extremely expensive to have a lot of intermittent sources in the power grid. In my country there is a nuclear power plant which has a LCOE of ca. 35 €/MWh and another reactor is planned, which would have a LCOE of ca. 28 €/MWh. It is a lot cheaper than wind or solar here (in the middle of Europe), but it can be vice versa in countries like Saudi Arabia and similar.

  • Vincent Robinette
    Vincent Robinette 7 months ago +2

    What you said is true, but the real solution lies in electrical energy storage. That will smooth out the intermittency of wind and even solar, and provide power through the night. It's the perfect solution for allowing baseload plants to continuously run at their most efficient output and, handle peaks in demand. It will also absorb spikes in output from wind farms during wind storms. It will also eliminate curtailment of wind turbines, which reduces their operating costs. The technologies that interest me the most are batteries (other than lithium) flywheel, and capacitors. Where weight and bulk aren't much of a concern for stationary applications, availability, cost, and longevity are. Save lithium for density critical applications like electric vehicles. Lithium and cobalt are too rare to squander on stationary energy storage. With this, renewable energy can expand to meet the growing demand without further expansion of fossil generation, and can pick up the slack from the decommissioning of old coal plants.

    • Vincent Robinette
      Vincent Robinette 5 months ago

      @đeri662 I didn't realize those heavy cores could change temps that fast, but, there is a lot of circulation volume through them, and the temperature of water doesn't have to change very much to make a big difference in head pressure, which ultimately dictates the torque produced by the steam turbines. That's interesting to know! That is fast enough response, if it's serving a large customer base. Superheating can be used, to reduce enthalpy at lower head pressures, maintaining pretty good efficiency. The biggest thing is being able to avoid bypassing, which is just letting thermal energy go to waste.

    • đeri662
      đeri662 5 months ago +1

      @Vincent Robinette Gen III or newer nuclear power plants can change their output faster than 5 % of rated power per minute without any steam bypassing. They can do that with lower steam flow and lower steam entalphy easily. The reactor is a huge thermal mass, but its thermal power can be changed almost immediately with control rods. It's the current power that's important, not the energy contained in the reactor.
      Even abrupt changes in supply or demand aren't a big problem in this case. The reason for this is the huge mechanical inertia from steam turbines and synchronous generators. So nuclear power plants would have enough time to react and get supply and demand balanced once again.

    • Vincent Robinette
      Vincent Robinette 5 months ago

      @đeri662 It isn't very efficient for them, especially when they need to cut back. That involves opening bypasses, to blow steam by the turbines, directly into the condenser. It might, though be more efficient than running less base load capacity, and handling the short duration peak demand with peaker plants, which have to run short cycles. There is energy to spare in a nuclear core. They're so thermally massive, that they need hours, not minutes, let alone seconds to make those adjustments. That's why the bypass valves. It would be much more efficient for them to remain steady, and let outside infrastructure level the fluctuations in load. At least give some time constant, to allow cooling and heating of the reactor core, without wasteful bypass.

    • đeri662
      đeri662 5 months ago +1

      @Vincent Robinette Of course demand varies, it does so every minute of every day. But nuclear power plants can operate in a load-following mode, meaning they can vary their output to follow the demand. Just like coal, gas or hydroelectric power plants do today. So you can follow demand all the time with nuclear only and that's why you don't need any peaker power plant. I hope this makes sense to you now.

    • Vincent Robinette
      Vincent Robinette 5 months ago

      @đeri662 you do. Air conditioning and lighting during the day vs. during night. The consumer demand varies all the time, thus, the supply has to adjust to match that. There has to be something to draw up the energy during low demand, and supply the high demand periods.

  • Vlad G
    Vlad G 7 months ago

    I don't know about you, but I hate being lectured by a teenage know-it-all dweeb. Millenialsplaining at its worst.

    • đeri662
      đeri662 7 months ago

      Just because someone is younger than you are, it doesn't mean he/she is not smarter than you.

  • Ryan Fazal
    Ryan Fazal 7 months ago

    Because then what’s the point of invading the Middle East

  • David Parry
    David Parry 7 months ago +1

    *A. ... because the usa is owned by Saudi Arabia, has to suck Saudi nads or no money for the bankrupt usa, and additionally the coal and oil industry in the usa bribes american child-molesters and halfwits... aka 'american politicians'.*
    You're welcome.

  • David Parry
    David Parry 7 months ago +1

    *Many better countries ARE using it, you american simpletons!*
    You're welcome, halfwits.

  • Jalbesbe
    Jalbesbe 7 months ago

    Why is it whenever they talk about CO2 being pumped into the air they still show factory smoke stacks pumping out white "smoke", I don't know for sure in the states but in Canada our CO2 scrubbers take 99% of CO2 created out of smoke stacks and whats left is mostly just water vapor and less CO2 than someone breathing, coming out as a white cloud. Solar panels and wind turbines are very very inefficient solar panels hardly covert any solar power into actual energy we can use, just look at the issues Germany had that they had to find other sources of energy still. More "efficient" solar farms take up huge amounts of land space that could otherwise be used, they also absorb more solar heat into that area which can contribute to rising temperatures.
    Wind farms are one of the biggest jokes, most farms that are created actually stop themselves from working since you can only have up to 4 turbines within relative proximity to one another after that they cancel the others out. The area where you get the most use from them is near the water however this doesn't work as seen by Fukushima who is currently going be to removing their turbines, wind turbines require such finite wind conditions to work that its incredibly useless, not enough wind and just a little too much and they have to be turned off, which turning off a wind turbine costs a continual amount of energy to be fed in to keep it off. As well as the huge costs to maintain wind turbines is why Fukushima is opting out of keeping them. So the water doesn't work what about land. Well you have to go in land quite a lot and clear out huge amounts of land from forests and other things that may interfere with its operation, so for this green source of energy many places have to deforest entire areas to put in working turbines. One of the larger issues besides the fact wind turbines kill millions of bird species year they also pose a huge danger to a large area, when a wind turbine breaks down from one of many different ways it can there is not much that can be done about it. The cost to take apart/dismantle the turbine is a huge amount of money and very dangerous, so most often when one is decommissioned it just sits there and breaks down more; once you add a bit of wind to the equation or just too much wind or something going wrong to a fully working turbine you have a large scale issue because while it breaks and falls apart its throwing huge amounts of heavily metal oil and potentially fire for miles around, as seen in the case of a women who lived 20 miles away from a wind farm had a flaming piece of debris from the turbine come crashing thru her house and caused apart of the building to collapse on impact as well as set fire to the entire building.
    Hydro dams are the best of eco power systems except for them drastically effecting fish species, if not implemented or regulated correctly it also effects plants and animals as seen from the dam in Africa that caused the desert to expand exponentially for a time due to the new regulated water flow to the land. Dams also require you to flood an entire area behind the dam to have proper flow thru the dam, other than that they are pretty dam good.
    Best option that isn't a "eco friendly" power generation is CADU nuclear reactors, because unlike the traditional nuclear reactor Canadas reactors basically run off of dirt for the amount of material it uses and how radioactive it is and can not melt down since we have to keep them warm not cool them down. They don't produce much radioactive waste and are quite efficient for the amount they do use, unlike traditional reactors which do have a huge power out put but are very radio active, dangerous, wasteful, and produce a huge amount of radioactive waste which they can't use but we take dilute and use it perfectly fine. CANDU reactors have so little radiation that its a common site to see the people in around the reactor chambers cleaning etc are not wearing hazmat suits since there arn't really any radiation readings. The most that comes out of CANDU reactors besides power is clouds of white "smoke" which is actually just clouds of water vapor.

  • MrToby
    MrToby 8 months ago +2

    Solar is already subsidized through taxes in my country. I'm subsidizing my neighbors who have solar on their roofs. That stinks.

  • subsrib to pewdepai
    subsrib to pewdepai 8 months ago

    Atomic energy is the only answer.

  • Ricardo Santiago
    Ricardo Santiago 8 months ago

    Green energy is not great, is very expensive, unreliable and very inefficient, period.

    • đeri662
      đeri662 8 months ago

      You described wind&solar. Green energy is hydroelectricity, geothermal and biomass too. We can add nuclear to the mix of green energy if we neglect the waste.

  • b-rock
    b-rock 8 months ago

    Moronic fantasy.

  • b-rock
    b-rock 8 months ago

    Too ugly for USclip

  • guyoflife
    guyoflife 8 months ago

    Solution: stop worrying about costs and just do it. Take money out of the equation. End capitalism. Big oil won't let it happen.

    • MrToby
      MrToby 8 months ago

      End capitalism? So you think socialism with pay for it? LOL

    • đeri662
      đeri662 8 months ago

      @guyoflife Probably, you would have to ask mining companies if it's feasible. In our lignite mine, there is a machine that basically does all the work by itself, but the workers have to still be there to watch over the process, steer the machine and get the coal on the conveyor belt.

    • guyoflife
      guyoflife 8 months ago

      @đeri662 Dangerous mining could be solved with robots.

    • đeri662
      đeri662 8 months ago

      @guyoflife Ok first of all, high level waste represents only 3 % of all the nuclear waste by volume. The radiation from it after only 10 years is only about 10 % of the maximum radiation (this is why it is stored inside nuclear power plants for decades). Then it can be burried deep in the ground (up to 5 km), where there is basically no groundwater. To ensure there are no effects on the environment, so caled "multiple barrier" geological disposal will be used. It will be sealed in a durable container, it will be in a form which is insoluble and the container will be surrounded with an impermeable barrier. I think this is enough so that no one can come close to it and there is no effect on the biosphere, even though most of the radiation is gone after 1000 years.
      I wasn't trying to say that they are inherently dangerous, they aren't, just like nuclear reactors. It is just funny to me, how we talk about Chernobyl and Fukushima like it's the worst catastrophe we experienced but almost no one knows about the mentioned hydroelectric dam breaking.
      Deaths per unit energy: www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#664fc94f709b . The actual electricity production doesn't kill anyone with solar and wind, it's the mining for materials, solar panels and wind turbine parts manufacturing and the installation and maitanance that kills them. Because of the low energy density of sunlight and wind, more materials are needed to manufacture them to get the same ammount of energy. Rare-earth material (used for rotors in type 4 wind turbine generators) mining is a nasty proces. The problem with solar panels is that you can't extinguish the fire on a house when they are producing (short circuit, shock). A lot of accidents happen with solar panels installation and wind turbine maintanance. Nuclear energy is safer because it produces a lot of electricity with a capacity factor of around 90 % (compared to for example solar in my country - 12 %).

    • guyoflife
      guyoflife 8 months ago

      @đeri662 Nuclear waste is more dangerous than carbon. That's why they have to bury it, and they do so very securely. What if there was a leak and it got into the water supply or something? A dam breaking doesn't mean dams are inherently dangerous. Anything will break down over time. You just have to build it securely and maintain it. How does solar and wind kill people?

  • Goodtimes
    Goodtimes 8 months ago

    Burn that clean coal and put people to work ! MAGA

  • David G
    David G 8 months ago

    I came across a NEW breakthrough energy solution that looks to be the holy-grail. It solves all these issues without any environmental impact. Worth looking into. The energy company is called H2IL with a stack of videos proving the technology. I think their technology enables a scale-able power supply 24/7, flexible with demands and not dependent on environment. They recently made the comment to the effect of $0.03c/Kw for electricity. Energy companies are going to love this one!

  • Michael88 MK4
    Michael88 MK4 8 months ago

    Because co2 is a benefit

  • chaincat33
    chaincat33 9 months ago

    America is too big and uses too much energy, and renewable is too expensive. Also we only have 17 years before things get bad. This is a herculean task, and one I don't think we're up to. Were we a country that didn't have a massive debt, and also a country that didn't require the low skill jobs fossil fuels bring, we might be able to pull it off.

  • chef luigi super star
    chef luigi super star 9 months ago

    Global warming is a scam..its natural fluctuation

    • MrToby
      MrToby 8 months ago

      Natural fluctuation? LOL. Global warming is being hyped up by the left but it's real.

  • Nikola95inYT
    Nikola95inYT 9 months ago

    Because green energy neither profitable nor stable enough to replenish our needs. You cannot imagine any big industry factory which would work exclusively on green energy - it's just impossible. The best option is, we must destroy some place and build a dam somewhere in order to use the energy of falling water. Of course it will totally wreck up local ecosystem, but everything comes with a price.

  • Rodney Carpluk
    Rodney Carpluk 9 months ago

    There is no legitimate reason this hasn't happened.

  • goofyfoot2001
    goofyfoot2001 9 months ago +1

    You lost me at tax credits and subsidies. Renewables will make when they are worth the money. Stealing from me to give rich people fancy cars and solar panels on their roofs is bullshit.

  • Kent Coleman
    Kent Coleman 9 months ago

    You also didn’t mention how renewables will become even cheaper with time

  • Archer V.
    Archer V. 10 months ago +1

    because is not rentable!!.. yes is amazing clean energy BUT! ofers only 2% rentability. is a SHIT. not working for industry!!..nuclear atomic is future.

  • Eddie Cook
    Eddie Cook 10 months ago

    The only reason fossil fuel industry gets away with Heynis crimes against humanity is because the American people are too freaking ignorant and sorry to simply speak the truth. There are cures for all diseases and zero point energy devices and they’ve been there for more than 100 years.

  • Eddie Cook
    Eddie Cook 10 months ago +1

    This idiot is working for the RothChilds. He is full of shit. Do not believe anything he says. We’ve had cars that run off of water for many many decades. The son of a bitch is working for the deep state.

  • Maih Nheim
    Maih Nheim 10 months ago

    we know the money has this channel by the D

  • đeri662
    đeri662 10 months ago +2

    Look at Germany for example. Since they started to implement solar and wind, actual energy share on the electricity bill is only around 20 %, the rest are taxes, renewables surcharges and grid fees and the only reason why their power system didn't fall apart a few times is because they are interconnected to the rest of continental Europe.

  • đeri662
    đeri662 10 months ago +3

    It's too expensive. The solar panels and wind turbines themselves aren't so expensive but if you want too have only green energy, you have to have sufficient energy storage or backup. And that's the expensive part. Also you need voltage control, so more on load tap changer transformers or similar devices are needed. You need to bring the electricity from places where it's windy to load centers, so you need more power lines etc.

    • Vincent Robinette
      Vincent Robinette 7 months ago +2

      You hit the nail in the head. 2 things that need improvement. Cost effective and efficient energy storage, and a better, more efficient recycling program to defray the cost and environmental impact of decommissioning aged assets.

  • I Vote
    I Vote 10 months ago

    Good luck building a nuclear power plant with battery powered Tonka toys

  • Ryooken
    Ryooken 11 months ago

    One reason greed. Coal is a dying industry.

  • TCGM
    TCGM 11 months ago

    We represent over 20,000 wind turbine professionals in the industry and from all of us to you that you for making this video. In some cases we find ourselves defending our occupation and trying to explain the overall impact. I have shared this on our channels. I would love to discuss this with you on our podcast some time. Great work.

  • Dominic Scheibmeir
    Dominic Scheibmeir 11 months ago

    The real issue is the livestock industry. Animal agriculture produces 51 percent of greenhouse gases and is responsible for 40 percent of rainforest destruction. Fossil fuels are bad, but aren't even close to the level of environmental damage as the meat and dairy industry are.

  • realvanman1
    realvanman1 11 months ago +1

    Ultimately no amount of austerity will make a difference if we don't get our numbers down from the asinine Billions (with a B!) Into the reasonable millions (like less than 100 million). One child per person folks. Time to be responsible and close your legs.

  • TheRealNoodles
    TheRealNoodles 11 months ago +1

    Because the "free market" doesn't deem it profitable so there's not a lot of investment. The market is great only if there's profit involved, but when there is none, it fails to provide. The current coal tech is cheaper to run. Green energy needs lots of capital and investments, right now it is too costly for individual firms to undertake the initiative and also mining companies lobbying governments.

  • Lucas Goye
    Lucas Goye Year ago

    Awesome video!! i'd suggest putting the numbers big on the screen so the audience can get the point on the enormous differences between those industries. It's like im hearing the numbers but not the importance of them.

  • Lesa Be
    Lesa Be Year ago

    Real science should be included in your basic rant against coal & gas. Solar Flares & Solar Storms have more influence on earth's temperatures. Great real.

  • Giovanni Ramirez
    Giovanni Ramirez Year ago

    199 bucks? kiss my ass.

    NESIAN SIDES Year ago

    Money power greed... Isn't so complicated,

  • Lovely Jubbly
    Lovely Jubbly Year ago

    More reasonable than most unreliables fan boys, I give you that. Pretty much the only reason fossil fuels get subsidies is getting them up and running provides enormous net benefits. You get a huge bang for your buck. With wind and solar we are still looking at never never land. What's needed with them is yet to be discovered affordable storage and a rebuilt grid (bloody expensive). Climate change is gradual and despite what the green zealots would have you believe is complex and definitely not settled. Thus far the best bet is use your cleanest fossil fuel generation and/or nuke or hydro, AND double the research budget on "green" energy breakthroughs. Affordable energy affects every part of our civilisation. It underpins the fact that we live in the greatest explosion of knowledge and wellbeing in human history. Pushing unaffordable energy onto society through politically correct fascism and fanaticism will kill and impoverish millions. With the cleanest current affordable energy and expanding clean energy research budgets we can affordably adapt to any gradual changes in climate. It is energy poor nations who find it hard to recover from natural disasters!!!

  • v
    v Year ago +1

    Because fossil fuels are the most efficient source of obtaining energy. A fact few will acknowledge.

    • đeri662
      đeri662 8 months ago

      @Robin Smith Of course, I was just trying to correct the original comment about effiiciency.

    • Robin Smith
      Robin Smith 8 months ago

      đeri662 It is but it requires a lot of water to be available in a suitable geographical location. That severally limits it's availability as an energy source. You would likely know that anyway but it makes the comparison with fossil fuels a little less useful.

    • đeri662
      đeri662 10 months ago

      Hydro power is the most efficient electricity source (around 90 % efficiency).

  • Iain Reid
    Iain Reid Year ago +1

    The reality is that solar and wind are not a great way of producing electricity, in fact they are poor. Unstable, unrealiable and unpredictable, part time power plants. People say that batteries will be the saviour of renewables but seriously underestimate the capcity required to make up for the stability and demand response that thermal stations provide. In other words, lots of huge batteries which will come at an eye watering cost, and are simply unaffordable even as their prices are dropping. Their life is relatively short, so regular complete replacement wiill be required. There is no alternative to thermal stations in the mid term.
    The only alternative that could be viable but needs more investment and research is nuclear generation.

    • đeri662
      đeri662 10 months ago

      At least someone understands the indirect problems of solar and wind. I think in the mid term it should be nuclear for base load, hydro and gas for peak load and small amounts of renewables.

  • Wayne D
    Wayne D Year ago

    The oil 🛢 will be used until it runs out as the greed of everyone that makes money from it us more important to them then the health of the planet 🌏. The people that have the oil money will always be able to avoid the effects of climate change because they will buy a big castle upon a hill and watch all the poor people die around it and they will be ignoring the fact that their future great grandchildren will likely die of dehydration along with all other life on earth. BECAUSE MONEY GO FIGURE!

  • Laticia Cull
    Laticia Cull Year ago

    The best thing I've found on the net was plans from Avasva .

  • The West is the Best

    Ironically for Democrats, oil drilling kills for fewer animals than green energy does.
    Windmills decapitate thousands of birds every year and solar panels reflect concentrated doses of sunlight that literally fry thousands more, alive, mid-flight!

  • Branka Blaskovic
    Branka Blaskovic Year ago

    10-100x potential:
    Banyan Network BBN Big Data Network www.banyanbbt.org/
    Moozicore MZI Music Streaming Service tokensale.moozicore.com//
    SunContrac SNC Decentralized Energy Market suncontract.org/
    MoneyToken MTC Crypto-backed Loans moneytoken.com/
    100x potential:
    UNIFY Crowdfunding platform, only 1M$ Market Cap. www.unify.today/

  • okok
    okok Year ago

    I have a debate and I have to be against clean energy. What can I say?

  • fireofenergy
    fireofenergy Year ago

    Like we're _really_ gonna save the biosphere with diffuse and intermittent sources.
    Seeker failed to mention that since solar has a capacity factor of only about 20%, we'd have to build *5x* for it to be on par with FFs. You know, the _inverse_ of capacity factor!_ Plus storage, plus extra for the inefficiency of that storage, I mean, come on, DO THE MATH!
    Solution: molten salt nuclear (and renewables)!

  • Marsh
    Marsh Year ago +3

    Unfortunately , the Renewable Energy industry is full of half truths and lies. Wind & Solar is "intermittent energy" that has to have additional means to maintain continuity of supply for the National Grid. Intermittent is not "Base Load Power", it requires some other Generating or Storage to cover for when the power output is low - at night, no wind or storms.
    COST of the necessary ""back-up"" System , whether it be Generators OR Batteries must be added to Green Technology,
    (primary cost) of Renewable technology "plus" back-up (secondary cost) OVERALL makes Green Energy too expensive.
    The real cost of Renewable Energy is Not Cheaper but it is the most unreliable and more of it ,,, does not help.

  • The Ultimate Reductionist

    Because cuntservaturds control all our laws/governments. Conservatism = antiscience = antiAmerican = antitechnology =
    pure selfishness & greed & hypocrisy = Holocaust-denier = AGW-denier = antivaxxar = flat-earther = chemtrailertrash.
    Exterminate all conservatives: problem solved.

  • Iain Reid
    Iain Reid Year ago

    to keep it short and concise, renewable energy does not and cannot work to provide the power we need. And it is a lot more costly. This cost drives away essential heavy industry and relocates it elsewhere abroad to the detriment of jobs and wealth creation.

  • Michael O
    Michael O Year ago

    If Liberals are so for this, they should power their own house with wind and solar alone. Also dont use fossil fuel cars and air plane. Stop cheating.

  • Alex Shi
    Alex Shi Year ago

    you guys do realize coal is also renewable right? hehehehe

  • Morris Mburu
    Morris Mburu Year ago

    I like that shirt

  • Robert Weekes
    Robert Weekes Year ago +3

    Advanced nuclear is the future -
    thorium MSR (molten salt reactor) -
    see Kirk Sorensen’s TED talks

  • Invinsible Clan
    Invinsible Clan Year ago