Yeah we shouldn't be putting so much into coal mines, especially since we know how bad it is for our health. Imagine putting billions into lead for gasoline. It's almost like if we put billions into researching unleaded gasoline version for fossil fuels we'd found a solution, like green energy.
What a great explanation! I'm going with pink energy! Not sure what that is yet, but it's probably more useful than green as it is guilt-tripped into us! ;-)
I call 💩 💩 💩 😂 This world was created to function fine. Man has made a BIG MESS OF IT ALL!!! Thanks Scottie .... have a blessed holiday season. Stay well and be safe 🙏 ❤️ Texas Nana Psalm 91
Doctor told my friend who was involved in accident that he will die in 3 years time 5 years ago, but after 5 years my friend is still alive only to find out that the very doctor is Dead for some sickness 3 yeas ago.
About 12 years ago I saw a DOC on similar to Geo Thermal. Someone was building a 2700 sq/ft house in Arizona and this was filmed and monitored by a curious research group. The house was well insulated and used Electric heat and AC for back up. What they did was to use a trench digger and dig a number of trenches about 4-5 feet deep. Then lay PCV or Stainless pipe in all of the trenches with Headers and more Headers connecting a piping into the house. End result - Even on the hottest days this system reduced the heating and cooling of this house by 70%. Why this has not caught on is beyond me.
I know this setup as a "Canadian Well". Not sure if it actually has to do anything with Canada, but I've wondered why it hasn't caught on myself. Sure, you have to dig and lay some pipes, but... ???! I want one!
We are in Canada and have Geothermal. It does cool in summer and it's what feels like cool air from the vents in winter but nontheless it heats a house comfortably. It does take electricity to run the fans.... And if the pipe bed has a problem it costs a lot to repair. It's great, though like the electric car, it has that cost for electricity. However, it doesn't have an almost irreplaceable battery like the electric cars.
Why did a music album (LP) cover come to mind as I listened? The one in particular was by Steely Dan "The Royal Scam" I was going to go with a Solar setup on my roof. Buy the panels locally etc shaving a little off the cost. Ouch they're much more expensive than I figured..then he tells me they're only good (basically long enough to almost pay for the panel cost but not the installation) and have to be replaced. Scaaamm We have wasted a lot of formerly arable farmland to "forests" of wind turbines that stand motionless half the time. Also the families lost their farms and livelihoods. There's a documentary about it. I think it's called A Bad Wind. TVO has it. A bunch has become terrifically wealthy over this and more have been bent over.
@@dzcav3 Sounds like the one. I couldn't remember the title (something about wind in a negative connotation). It featured a few families losing the family farm, property devaluation, injury to the animals, (which surprises me the most) (people protest instantly en masse when animals are being hurt, but no response this time) and protesting going ignored by those
As an electrical engineer, I pointed out the gross inefficiencies of solar power generation [20% efficiency AT MOST], the inefficiencies of wind turbines [research the Betz's Law], as well as the grand irony of imposing electric vehicles upon a populace, convincing their owners of the wonderful "green" benefits, while hiding the ugly truth that the power needed to charge those vehicles derived mostly from coal-burning plants. Never mind that the energy needed to operate something as small as a Prius requires as much power as one's entire home [1 horsepower = ~750W]. Those lithium ion batteries are not recyclable and are a larger threat to the ecosystem than even diesel in some cases. The entire planet was pushed headlong into this green agenda without consulting those who should have the answers [engineers], yet the engineers are the ones stuck grappling with how to squeeze blood from a turnip regarding maximizing efficiency. Being as I work in power electronics, many designs for new converters are 'experimental', Chinese counterfeit parts are rampant, and many topologies and semiconductors have only been introduced to the market only a short 8 to 10 years ago, which is not long enough to gauge reliability in the long term. I say that as I have had a power supply failure in a flat screen TV that was not even three years old but was 'Energy Star' certified.
Yup. A few quick (theoretical) physics calculations that don't take into account practical complexities of real world design, construction, usage, and eventual 'recyclage' are pretty useless! Sometimes, it's painful being an engineer. :)
Meanwhile in California - where we have been putting up wind turbines since the 1980s: at this moment wind power is generating 4% of the electricity capacity in the electrical grid. (1907 MW from wind divided by 47,161 MW total electrical capacity = 4%) Last year during the Labor Day heat wave, electrical capacity was 55,000 MW, demand was about 52,000MW, wind was generating only about 1,000MW. That's when Newsom said "Don't charge your electric car..." To be fair, on average over the course of a year, wind supplies about 7% of the state's electricity. This is more about collecting the subsidies than producing electricity.
Great video with some good information and comparisons. Another point...which could be in another video is the issue of bio-diversity. Where there are these massive solar farms, where the panels are sprayed a few times a year to keep algae from growing there is no biodiversity. The same goes for windfarms on land, especially in those places where forests are cut down to make room for them. Anyway, as you often say, "it is complicated".
So back of the envelope calculations, with 10^7 gigawatt-hours needed for the world. 10% efficient solar panels, and only 10 hours of sun light. Looks like 10,000 square kilometers is all that is needed to power the world, France is 550,000 square kilometers. Only being 2 orders of magnitude off, wonder what we did differently. You didn't assume we'd use residential solar panels? That's a bit cheeky.
In the 1970s, scientists said: a new ice age will occur within 20 years. 20 years passed and nothing happened. - In the 1990s, scientists said: global warming, the seas will rise 7 meters in 20 years. 20 years passed and nothing happened. - In 2020, the scientists said: a dangerous disease will wipe out half of humanity and nothing happened. 🤣🤣🤣
Oh nice - seems like a collection about almost every BS argument ever made. First of all - heavy metals have been outlawed in most electric appliances since 2005 (remember RoHS?) - yes some of those older panels are still in operation, but beside those few old ones panels are free of heavy metals. True, that’s not the case for most parts of the US, but they won’t get extra batches of toxic panels produced. No, they won’t end on landfills - at least in the EU they have to be recycled and given that they do contain valuable materials, like aluminum a lot of companies are interested in those resources. I actually stopped watching at this point, because there is zero hope for the rest to be less BS.
What if people at the gym did not just push and lift and stuff into nothing, but turned that almost completely pointless habit into some sort of energy?
Don't think the juice is worth the squeeze, even if the gym was full of people 24 hours a day our 2000 calories/day is about 100 watts of power and less efficient for musculoskeletal muscles. But to capture those watts would regain next to nothing, due to another loss in efficiency. Make keep the lights on if there was enough storage. But good on ya for thinking outside of the box.
I've had 3kW of solar for about 15 years now (cost me $6k AUD to install), and it has more than paid for itself in that time - especially now that electricity in Queensland, Australia is about 30c/kW. But I am thinking about upgrading the panels and the old ones are a concern.
Laziness is the answer, we need to stop doing stuff. There is great virtue in lethargy, less is more. So, I sit on my arse shaking my head at movers and shaker everytwhere.
Most people talk about reducing carbondioxide. But I don't think it's a problem since cimpelling evidence suggests it's a good thing for both plants & animals. I think the big problem is all the poisons we're creating. I mean common, compare our cars to all volcano eruptions through time.
Puerto Rico is still trying to recover its solar energy lost in 2017 hurricanes. Texas lost how many people when a cold snap to wind and solar offline. I have researched solar for my home. The $5000 in panels and equipment would cost at least $15,000 to have it installed with no batteries. The break even on that is 5-7 years. I would still have to pay a monthly connection fee to the grid provider and in California you get little to nothing for any excess you provide to the grid. “Free” solar programs, power purchase agreements, have you sign an iron clad 20-25 year contract that is tied to your homes deed for easements to your property and roof and if you sell the buyer has to “qualify for” and sign a 29-25 year contract regardless of how long you’ve paid. At the end of the contract they’ll sell you the 20 year old equipment. They wanted $200 a month with an annual increase of 2-3%, that’s over $80k. You don’t get the tax credits, they do. You don’t get anything for excess energy, they do. You still pay a monthly connection fee to big electric and you own nothing of the equipment. California is proposing a solar tax now based on the size of your system. 🤷🏼♂️
the only green kWh are the ones you saved. But any criticism to renewables should involve a comparison with non-renewables. And sorry but i'm wondering if the 'changing climate' argument could fall into the cathegory of fallacies
Also, considering 'produced energy' instead of 'power' you should multiply x2 or 3 the amount of wind turbines needed to replace nuclear energy. And maybe an additional x2 if you consider their life-span. The difference is that you can fill a hole with discarded wind blades, but dealing with radioactive scrap is not that easy. Uranium mines are a bit messy too, environmentally ang geopolitically. Think also on workplaces produced by either option.
IMO that's backwards. Before diving in headfirst as we've done, a comparison should have been made - honestly, fairly, and without epic drama (i.e. Al Gore telling us we're all gonna die and Greta telling us we stole her dreams). That's not at all what happened.
@@ScottiesTech I agree with with the conversation you've covered all but...climate change,,,I concur that yeah it's changing except for the fact that we or us aren't doing it ....look up,if there's a issue between identifying a "Normal weather event which is quite acceptable....it's the man-made application that is being introduced by the metric tonnes. All of which is detrimental for you & I and to future generations all of which will suffer the consequences of a totallitaritan tyrannous agenda placed on we the people. Question is man-made or ecological? We all know that there are issues from manufacturing,and lack of concern in the industrial age. But to believe that cow farts are killing the environment are ludicrous examples of tryanny at its best... We are the carbon the upper 1%dont need around to take away their consumables from their future generations. Culling is in the agenda, control and the huge thumb on yours and mines life. I've ranted enough😁🏁
@@ScottiesTech2 wrongs don't make 1 good... fossile and nuclear also sucked bilions in subsidies and still are, directly or not (just think of the military power needed to secure resources), and obviously they don't want to lose their cake. Capitalism is about profit, and selling the new magic tech to save the world without changing our lifestyle is now part of the business. And keeping old techs in the market also is.
You are quoting a one off occasion in the UK 10 years ago, this actually happens several times every year & is a well known occurrence. This is not a major negative, just something that has to be planned for & managed. Do some proper non biased research, the next power will be a mix of low carbon energy. there are several hydro power stations in the uk which have been operating since the early 80's & are currently under refurbishment to extend their lives by another 30+ years. If you don't like the idea of a cleaner less polluting form of energy keep drilling hundreds of thousands of oil & gas wells to get something you burn just once that pollutes the air we all breath, or build hundreds of new nuclear power stations and add to already mountainous amount of nuclear waste stored all around the world with no plan of what to do with it !
Clearly, they did NOT plan for it in the UK way back when. Thus, it was apparently not well-known enough, which makes you wonder what they're ignoring today.
Almost forgot about how bad subsided are for us, makes us pay for taxes, inflations, etc. So should we stop fossil fuel subsides? Or are they bad for renewables?
That depends on which country you live in. And even then, the gov't doesn't create money out of thin air. So... follow the money! It leads to interesting places.
@ScottiesTech like literally it's the same thing just if that government money goes into renewables its bad or fossil fuels then its good? You said it's bad for renewables without the country stipulation. No-one said it came out of thin air but you made it a mark against renewables, as if fossil fuels aren't the biggest recipients for this kind of money. Know what I mean?
@@elbob1491 The way I think about it is if I want electricity, I pay for it. Okay. But then my friend says, "Hey, I got solar for free and now I have no electric bill!" The idea is that it's "free energy", but the reality is that no, it isn't. I dunno anyone who gets fossil fuels for free. But your point is valid in that yeah, they're subsidized as well! The thing that gets me is this idea that you can get solar (for example) for FREE-FREE, but it's NOT really free. That IS a good way to get people to jump on the bandwagon. I don't know any people who got solar by paying for the system themselves. Most people don't because it'll take them 10+ years to recoup the costs.
@ScottiesTech for residential sure. But industrial scale, is another ballgame. My university installed solar panels for almost entire commuter parking lots. They had the dough, those are more efficient, and as added benefits they saved money on snow removal and salted less. It's enough to reduce the emissions on their power plant. With an estimated savings of ~$1 million a year. Forget your neighbor, you should be promoting cities, counties, all municipalities to be using solar then? Or do you have another reason? 🤔
@ScottiesTech oh I should also let you know that right now my power is increasingly coming from renewables. At the large scale it's cheaper. And if they were mostly renewables in my area they power bill would be 70% that's with their new construction and profit in there. Food for thought.
Yes, right now we can't replace 100% of non renewables, storage methods are improving. But switching from coal to natural gas is still an improvement. And yes improving recycling is a big need. Glass is recycled almost everywhere, you know for solar panels. But yes areas of high wind are most often that way because of geography, e.g. terrain. If wind blows through a valley, then wind will tend to blow through that valley. Climate change has shown to be increasing wind just as a side note. We get 1000w/per square meter of sunlight, seeing as how the sun doesn't care about the climate that won't change. But cloud cover will reduce the amount of light hitting the ground by decent factor, not a null value. As far Geothermal, the only thing I saw was that a highly volcanic area had volcanic activity. Seemingly implying geothermal causes a volcanoes. Can't wait to see the connection on that one, as nothing was provided. What would have been nice is if you showe, let's say a comparison. Say power per estimated emissions. Coal vs. Recycling emissions to make new solar panels. Coal vs. Wind turbine production, and coal vs. Geothermal...new volcanic activity I guess??? With wind turbines we will see an initial investment and then coal should overtake the emissions pretty darn quick. What do you estimate that time to be, a day, an hour, a month? With geothermal if you can show a link between more volcanic activity and geothermal and then add the drilling emission. When does coal or any fossil fuel overtake it again? Again modern solar v. Fossil fuels. Otherwise these claims seem like you just don't like eco friendly solutions, found a cherry picked reason to claim they are bad, and stopped analysis there. Cool thing about science is that we can test claims and do the theoretical/practical math to show which claim is justified.
Exactly. So why wasn't the above done for "going green"? And if it was, then why aren't we following the observations made? Becuz when countries cancel fossil fuels and nukes to go green, only to buy electricity at 3X the price from the country next door (which comes from fossil fuels, and they start building MORE such power plants), then I'm pretty sure somebody screwed something up bigtime...
@ScottiesTech oh sorry, ima saying if you are trying to condemn renewabales then you should have don't the comparison, not just say petroleum as soon many chemical species that are known to cause cancer why would we use it. Like I'd have to show those species occur less in any alternative I wished to present. Like you should have done.
A true in depth analysis of output and costs over 60 years of Nuclear v intermittent renewables including cost of batteries and the need to fully replace whole systems at least twice. (Also without gov subsidies) That would be interesting.
@bazpopham8496 and yeah throw coal in there too, just to show how almost any option is better than coal. Also I think we'd have to include emissions, nuclear takes a beating if you go back 30+years ago, those didn't last too well. Love canal, 3 mile island, Chernobyl, to name the biggest. Coal produces more radiation than nuclear power plants too.
Imagine being told by the government that they are to put countless billions in to one particular field. Its just more wealth transfer.
Yeah we shouldn't be putting so much into coal mines, especially since we know how bad it is for our health. Imagine putting billions into lead for gasoline. It's almost like if we put billions into researching unleaded gasoline version for fossil fuels we'd found a solution, like green energy.
What a great explanation! I'm going with pink energy! Not sure what that is yet, but it's probably more useful than green as it is guilt-tripped into us! ;-)
I will have to look this up.
Just did and nothing but nightmare city
I call 💩 💩 💩 😂
This world was created to function fine. Man has made a BIG MESS OF IT ALL!!!
Thanks Scottie .... have a blessed holiday season.
Stay well and be safe 🙏 ❤️
Texas Nana
Psalm 91
Very nice explanation. I wish more people would take time out and do their own research.
Yes, it`s very $$$GREEN$$$
Scotty is spot on 🎯👏👏👏
Doctor told my friend who was involved in accident that he will die in 3 years time 5 years ago, but after 5 years my friend is still alive only to find out that the very doctor is Dead for some sickness 3 yeas ago.
Exactly 😊
Real doctors don't say such things
So what?
About 12 years ago I saw a DOC on similar to Geo Thermal. Someone was building a 2700 sq/ft house in Arizona and this was filmed and monitored by a curious research group. The house was well insulated and used Electric heat and AC for back up. What they did was to use a trench digger and dig a number of trenches about 4-5 feet deep. Then lay PCV or Stainless pipe in all of the trenches with Headers and more Headers connecting a piping into the house. End result - Even on the hottest days this system reduced the heating and cooling of this house by 70%. Why this has not caught on is beyond me.
I know this setup as a "Canadian Well". Not sure if it actually has to do anything with Canada, but I've wondered why it hasn't caught on myself. Sure, you have to dig and lay some pipes, but... ???! I want one!
@@ScottiesTech When they showed the results I was truly amazed. And scratching my head🤔🤔
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
Former CIA Director William Casey. 1981
@@orange010 🤣🤣 What ever happened to - We The People?
We are in Canada and have Geothermal. It does cool in summer and it's what feels like cool air from the vents in winter but nontheless it heats a house comfortably. It does take electricity to run the fans.... And if the pipe bed has a problem it costs a lot to repair. It's great, though like the electric car, it has that cost for electricity. However, it doesn't have an almost irreplaceable battery like the electric cars.
Why did a music album (LP) cover come to mind as I listened?
The one in particular was by
Steely Dan
"The Royal Scam"
I was going to go with a Solar setup on my roof.
Buy the panels locally etc shaving a little off the cost.
Ouch they're much more expensive than I figured..then he tells me they're only good (basically long enough to almost pay for the panel cost but not the installation) and have to be replaced.
Scaaamm
We have wasted a lot of formerly arable farmland to "forests" of wind turbines that stand motionless half the time.
Also the families lost their farms and livelihoods.
There's a documentary about it.
I think it's called
A Bad Wind. TVO has it.
A bunch has become terrifically wealthy over this and more have been bent over.
Are you referring to "Down Wind", about wind power in Ontario? It's available on RUclips.
@@dzcav3 Sounds like the one.
I couldn't remember the title (something about wind in a negative connotation).
It featured a few families losing the family farm, property devaluation, injury to the animals, (which surprises me the most) (people protest instantly en masse when animals are being hurt, but no response this time) and protesting going ignored by those
As an electrical engineer, I pointed out the gross inefficiencies of solar power generation [20% efficiency AT MOST], the inefficiencies of wind turbines [research the Betz's Law], as well as the grand irony of imposing electric vehicles upon a populace, convincing their owners of the wonderful "green" benefits, while hiding the ugly truth that the power needed to charge those vehicles derived mostly from coal-burning plants. Never mind that the energy needed to operate something as small as a Prius requires as much power as one's entire home [1 horsepower = ~750W]. Those lithium ion batteries are not recyclable and are a larger threat to the ecosystem than even diesel in some cases. The entire planet was pushed headlong into this green agenda without consulting those who should have the answers [engineers], yet the engineers are the ones stuck grappling with how to squeeze blood from a turnip regarding maximizing efficiency. Being as I work in power electronics, many designs for new converters are 'experimental', Chinese counterfeit parts are rampant, and many topologies and semiconductors have only been introduced to the market only a short 8 to 10 years ago, which is not long enough to gauge reliability in the long term. I say that as I have had a power supply failure in a flat screen TV that was not even three years old but was 'Energy Star' certified.
Yup. A few quick (theoretical) physics calculations that don't take into account practical complexities of real world design, construction, usage, and eventual 'recyclage' are pretty useless! Sometimes, it's painful being an engineer. :)
Meanwhile in California - where we have been putting up wind turbines since the 1980s: at this moment wind power is generating 4% of the electricity capacity in the electrical grid. (1907 MW from wind divided by 47,161 MW total electrical capacity = 4%)
Last year during the Labor Day heat wave, electrical capacity was 55,000 MW, demand was about 52,000MW, wind was generating only about 1,000MW. That's when Newsom said "Don't charge your electric car..."
To be fair, on average over the course of a year, wind supplies about 7% of the state's electricity.
This is more about collecting the subsidies than producing electricity.
Great video with some good information and comparisons. Another point...which could be in another video is the issue of bio-diversity. Where there are these massive solar farms, where the panels are sprayed a few times a year to keep algae from growing there is no biodiversity. The same goes for windfarms on land, especially in those places where forests are cut down to make room for them. Anyway, as you often say, "it is complicated".
Great points!
Thank you for this based view. Could you pls talk about this to the green party here in germany.
So back of the envelope calculations, with 10^7 gigawatt-hours needed for the world. 10% efficient solar panels, and only 10 hours of sun light. Looks like 10,000 square kilometers is all that is needed to power the world, France is 550,000 square kilometers.
Only being 2 orders of magnitude off, wonder what we did differently. You didn't assume we'd use residential solar panels? That's a bit cheeky.
In the 1970s, scientists said: a new ice age will occur within 20 years. 20 years passed and nothing happened. - In the 1990s, scientists said: global warming, the seas will rise 7 meters in 20 years. 20 years passed and nothing happened. - In 2020, the scientists said: a dangerous disease will wipe out half of humanity and nothing happened. 🤣🤣🤣
We also came together and were able to ban choloflourocarbons and repaired the ozone. Might have changed he projected future a bit, huh?
EVS are so horrifying as to the battery supply chain the must be banned.
Seems a small mount of waste compared to the near 600 million tons of coal dug up & burnt once !
Brainwashed climachange bs, 😂. The clima is changing all the time.
Oh nice - seems like a collection about almost every BS argument ever made.
First of all - heavy metals have been outlawed in most electric appliances since 2005 (remember RoHS?) - yes some of those older panels are still in operation, but beside those few old ones panels are free of heavy metals.
True, that’s not the case for most parts of the US, but they won’t get extra batches of toxic panels produced.
No, they won’t end on landfills - at least in the EU they have to be recycled and given that they do contain valuable materials, like aluminum a lot of companies are interested in those resources.
I actually stopped watching at this point, because there is zero hope for the rest to be less BS.
What if people at the gym did not just push and lift and stuff into nothing, but turned that almost completely pointless habit into some sort of energy?
go live in the countryside and you'll need no gym ;
@@aldoconciso If only i knew this before. Now that i personally know of this, people, other than me, are flocking from the cities, screaming.
Don't think the juice is worth the squeeze, even if the gym was full of people 24 hours a day our 2000 calories/day is about 100 watts of power and less efficient for musculoskeletal muscles. But to capture those watts would regain next to nothing, due to another loss in efficiency. Make keep the lights on if there was enough storage. But good on ya for thinking outside of the box.
Put dynamos in the treadmills and power the tv sets.
I've had 3kW of solar for about 15 years now (cost me $6k AUD to install), and it has more than paid for itself in that time - especially now that electricity in Queensland, Australia is about 30c/kW. But I am thinking about upgrading the panels and the old ones are a concern.
cletus knows the simple things work best.
Laziness is the answer, we need to stop doing stuff. There is great virtue in lethargy, less is more. So, I sit on my arse shaking my head at movers and shaker everytwhere.
Most people talk about reducing carbondioxide. But I don't think it's a problem since cimpelling evidence suggests it's a good thing for both plants & animals. I think the big problem is all the poisons we're creating. I mean common, compare our cars to all volcano eruptions through time.
For those of you perusing the comments without watching the video:
The short answer is no.
Nope it does not make any difference it's all marketing for those that haven't looked into it.
Puerto Rico is still trying to recover its solar energy lost in 2017 hurricanes. Texas lost how many people when a cold snap to wind and solar offline.
I have researched solar for my home. The $5000 in panels and equipment would cost at least $15,000 to have it installed with no batteries. The break even on that is 5-7 years. I would still have to pay a monthly connection fee to the grid provider and in California you get little to nothing for any excess you provide to the grid. “Free” solar programs, power purchase agreements, have you sign an iron clad 20-25 year contract that is tied to your homes deed for easements to your property and roof and if you sell the buyer has to “qualify for” and sign a 29-25 year contract regardless of how long you’ve paid. At the end of the contract they’ll sell you the 20 year old equipment. They wanted $200 a month with an annual increase of 2-3%, that’s over $80k. You don’t get the tax credits, they do. You don’t get anything for excess energy, they do. You still pay a monthly connection fee to big electric and you own nothing of the equipment. California is proposing a solar tax now based on the size of your system. 🤷🏼♂️
WOW... That's even worse than here in France!!!
the only green kWh are the ones you saved. But any criticism to renewables should involve a comparison with non-renewables. And sorry but i'm wondering if the 'changing climate' argument could fall into the cathegory of fallacies
Also, considering 'produced energy' instead of 'power' you should multiply x2 or 3 the amount of wind turbines needed to replace nuclear energy. And maybe an additional x2 if you consider their life-span. The difference is that you can fill a hole with discarded wind blades, but dealing with radioactive scrap is not that easy. Uranium mines are a bit messy too, environmentally ang geopolitically. Think also on workplaces produced by either option.
IMO that's backwards. Before diving in headfirst as we've done, a comparison should have been made - honestly, fairly, and without epic drama (i.e. Al Gore telling us we're all gonna die and Greta telling us we stole her dreams). That's not at all what happened.
@@ScottiesTech I agree with with the conversation you've covered all but...climate change,,,I concur that yeah it's changing except for the fact that we or us aren't doing it ....look up,if there's a issue between identifying a "Normal weather event which is quite acceptable....it's the man-made application that is being introduced by the metric tonnes. All of which is detrimental for you & I and to future generations all of which will suffer the consequences of a totallitaritan tyrannous agenda placed on we the people. Question is man-made or ecological?
We all know that there are issues from manufacturing,and lack of concern in the industrial age.
But to believe that cow farts are killing the environment are ludicrous examples of tryanny at its best...
We are the carbon the upper 1%dont need around to take away their consumables from their future generations. Culling is in the agenda, control and the huge thumb on yours and mines life. I've ranted enough😁🏁
@@ScottiesTech2 wrongs don't make 1 good... fossile and nuclear also sucked bilions in subsidies and still are, directly or not (just think of the military power needed to secure resources), and obviously they don't want to lose their cake. Capitalism is about profit, and selling the new magic tech to save the world without changing our lifestyle is now part of the business. And keeping old techs in the market also is.
Interesting point , Scottie thanks for work you do :)
You are quoting a one off occasion in the UK 10 years ago, this actually happens several times every year & is a well known occurrence. This is not a major negative, just something that has to be planned for & managed. Do some proper non biased research, the next power will be a mix of low carbon energy. there are several hydro power stations in the uk which have been operating since the early 80's & are currently under refurbishment to extend their lives by another 30+ years. If you don't like the idea of a cleaner less polluting form of energy keep drilling hundreds of thousands of oil & gas wells to get something you burn just once that pollutes the air we all breath, or build hundreds of new nuclear power stations and add to already mountainous amount of nuclear waste stored all around the world with no plan of what to do with it !
Clearly, they did NOT plan for it in the UK way back when. Thus, it was apparently not well-known enough, which makes you wonder what they're ignoring today.
Almost forgot about how bad subsided are for us, makes us pay for taxes, inflations, etc. So should we stop fossil fuel subsides? Or are they bad for renewables?
That depends on which country you live in. And even then, the gov't doesn't create money out of thin air. So... follow the money! It leads to interesting places.
@ScottiesTech like literally it's the same thing just if that government money goes into renewables its bad or fossil fuels then its good? You said it's bad for renewables without the country stipulation. No-one said it came out of thin air but you made it a mark against renewables, as if fossil fuels aren't the biggest recipients for this kind of money. Know what I mean?
@@elbob1491 The way I think about it is if I want electricity, I pay for it. Okay. But then my friend says, "Hey, I got solar for free and now I have no electric bill!" The idea is that it's "free energy", but the reality is that no, it isn't. I dunno anyone who gets fossil fuels for free. But your point is valid in that yeah, they're subsidized as well! The thing that gets me is this idea that you can get solar (for example) for FREE-FREE, but it's NOT really free. That IS a good way to get people to jump on the bandwagon. I don't know any people who got solar by paying for the system themselves. Most people don't because it'll take them 10+ years to recoup the costs.
@ScottiesTech for residential sure. But industrial scale, is another ballgame. My university installed solar panels for almost entire commuter parking lots. They had the dough, those are more efficient, and as added benefits they saved money on snow removal and salted less. It's enough to reduce the emissions on their power plant. With an estimated savings of ~$1 million a year. Forget your neighbor, you should be promoting cities, counties, all municipalities to be using solar then? Or do you have another reason? 🤔
@ScottiesTech oh I should also let you know that right now my power is increasingly coming from renewables. At the large scale it's cheaper. And if they were mostly renewables in my area they power bill would be 70% that's with their new construction and profit in there. Food for thought.
Love your videos!
It's nice to listen to sane people
Thank You Scottie . . . 1 Eye . . .
Banger video💥💥💥💥💥🤙 😄👍
Yes, right now we can't replace 100% of non renewables, storage methods are improving. But switching from coal to natural gas is still an improvement. And yes improving recycling is a big need. Glass is recycled almost everywhere, you know for solar panels.
But yes areas of high wind are most often that way because of geography, e.g. terrain. If wind blows through a valley, then wind will tend to blow through that valley. Climate change has shown to be increasing wind just as a side note.
We get 1000w/per square meter of sunlight, seeing as how the sun doesn't care about the climate that won't change. But cloud cover will reduce the amount of light hitting the ground by decent factor, not a null value.
As far Geothermal, the only thing I saw was that a highly volcanic area had volcanic activity. Seemingly implying geothermal causes a volcanoes. Can't wait to see the connection on that one, as nothing was provided.
What would have been nice is if you showe, let's say a comparison. Say power per estimated emissions. Coal vs. Recycling emissions to make new solar panels. Coal vs. Wind turbine production, and coal vs. Geothermal...new volcanic activity I guess???
With wind turbines we will see an initial investment and then coal should overtake the emissions pretty darn quick. What do you estimate that time to be, a day, an hour, a month?
With geothermal if you can show a link between more volcanic activity and geothermal and then add the drilling emission. When does coal or any fossil fuel overtake it again?
Again modern solar v. Fossil fuels. Otherwise these claims seem like you just don't like eco friendly solutions, found a cherry picked reason to claim they are bad, and stopped analysis there. Cool thing about science is that we can test claims and do the theoretical/practical math to show which claim is justified.
Exactly. So why wasn't the above done for "going green"? And if it was, then why aren't we following the observations made? Becuz when countries cancel fossil fuels and nukes to go green, only to buy electricity at 3X the price from the country next door (which comes from fossil fuels, and they start building MORE such power plants), then I'm pretty sure somebody screwed something up bigtime...
@ScottiesTech oh sorry, ima saying if you are trying to condemn renewabales then you should have don't the comparison, not just say petroleum as soon many chemical species that are known to cause cancer why would we use it. Like I'd have to show those species occur less in any alternative I wished to present. Like you should have done.
A true in depth analysis of output and costs over 60 years of Nuclear v intermittent renewables including cost of batteries and the need to fully replace whole systems at least twice. (Also without gov subsidies)
That would be interesting.
@bazpopham8496 and yeah throw coal in there too, just to show how almost any option is better than coal. Also I think we'd have to include emissions, nuclear takes a beating if you go back 30+years ago, those didn't last too well. Love canal, 3 mile island, Chernobyl, to name the biggest. Coal produces more radiation than nuclear power plants too.
👍👍👍
👍