Renewable Energy is The Scam We All Fell For

I was thinking about installing solar panels on my roof but this video convinced me to install a nuclear reactor instead, very helpful advice.

Hello, for transparency; I have 6 years of working as a wind technician and 1 year working in an operation center overseeing wind and solar.Other than working experience I am also PJM and NERC certified. I'm here to clear a little bit of this up. 1. Bird strikes: Yes, there are avian strikes that happen on occasions however these are non endangered species. Every single wind site that has endangered species employs avian monitors that are across the site monitoring any avian presence and curtail entire zones of turbines to prevent any strikes from happening. These monitors also team up with automatic curtailment devices that track all avian activity and curtail the towers if it senses any avian activity. These devices are so sensitive they will occasionally curtail for planes by accident. 2. Yes, it is an intermittent resource that does not produce at maximum capacity 100% of the time, using the phrasing "optimally less than 30% of the time" is misleading and I feel you're doing that on purpose. Don't do that, I hope you're better than that. Most resources run around 70% capacity for the majority of the time and that is for wind. Solar produces very optimally during the day and very very rarely fall below 99.5% availability. In regards to the less than 10% claim you made, yes that happens however it doesn't happen anymore, you're referring to two different things here, the first is very old farms that were built with bad planning, and there are very few that meet this standard you've stated here. The second is those very few very rich people who want to build these farms as tax breaks, again a very rare circumstance but it happens. 3. I'm not against nuclear and I will touch on this more later however, just as you stated, those massive turbines have a tremendous mass, and once that inertial energy has been lost it takes a long time to restart, and in an event where a tie-line has been opened on the grid, restoring that power may take hours or in worse case scenarios days. Once a nuclear turbine has lost all inertia and power, it takes 48 hours of power from outside sources to restore the unit to an operating status. 4. The land usage that you're referring to sounds disastrous and overwhelming because that is how you are phrasing it. Yes, completely clearing the land of everything would be terrible however that is not what happens. What happens is farms are usually built on landowners property that maintain cattle and grow crops such as wheat, corn, cotton etc. These farmers are also paid by the wind turbine owners for the usage of land for loss of crop space plus a premium for simply allowing the turbines to be there(which is actually a very healthy amount) The pad of the turbine is typically only 25 foot in diameter. You say its inefficient because of the erroneous numbers you used. The actual space used by the turbines is a lot less than you're portraying it. The farm I worked at had 54 turbines with 25 foot padmounts. That is only 27,000 sq ft of land (roughly, I would be more than happy for a correction) for a 130 MW site. That would be 130,000,000 watts of energy per 2508 sq meters. (again, I'm no mathematician, I welcome corrections to my math) Assuming my numbers are correct until I can get someone better at math to correct me, the energy production vs area taken changes a little doesn't it? 5. Whats this the asterix at the end of the wind turbine death count? OSHA is all over every single injury in all working fields, you can't just push a death under the rug, these numbers are very accurate. I fully agree on nuclear however, it has caught a bad wrap from the major meltdowns. However your argument of how nuclear gets rid of nuclear bombs is a little off the wall, the bombs already made are a very finite resource to power theses plants. Finally, it should go without saying that a push to environmentally friendly methods to sustain the energy grid should always be a goal and misrepresenting one of the best methods we have for this is not the way to go about it. TLDR VERSION Wind is heavily misrepresented in this video however I'm not saying nuclear is an enemy. The most CO2 efficient and reuse-able methods should be used to sustain the grid i.e. wind and nuclear, followed by hydro and solar and lastly coal.

I once asked an electrical engineer if he knew anyone in the field who was against nuclear power and after thinking for a brief second he gave a very sharp, "No!".

Science teacher here. We teach nuclear energy in grades 9 and 10. By the end of grade 9, a lot of the students still say nuclear energy is awful and we should just not do it. By the end of year 10, a lot of those students change their tune probably because we go in depth more and do not include the baggage of nuclear weapons. We also go into the stats cited in this video which helps a lot. One student: "Are you telling me that more people kark it through wind energy that with nuclear". Me: "exactly". I just wish my government was not so far against nuclear energy to the point that my country get exactly 0% of its energy from nuclear. Effectively banned despite having some of the richest deposits of uranium on the planet. But hey, you get more money selling the stuff over seas right? My countries government is made up of idiots.

Never liked the term "Save the planet" I prefer George Carlin's view "The planet isn't going anywhere... WE are!"

Ive had solar on my roof for 21 years and haven’t paid a dime to my utility company. They paid for themselves in five years. A well designed solar system can last forty years.

YouTube did a great job hiding this T² episode from me... 3 years, outstanding. But yeah, it's spot on

Nice advert for nuclear reactors! I'll be definitely saving up for one.

I am an electrical engineer and I agree with this video, if you take politics out of science, the world of alternative energy will look much different.

Better title: why nuclear energy isn't that bad

Here we are... 3 years later and Germany is still heavily investing into wind and solar energy while having the highest prices for energy.

I'm curious if you've covered the dangers of the lithium batteries in electric cars

In Germany, about 4000 birds were killed from 2002 to 2019 due to wind tuebines. but about 18mil every year due to glass.

As soon as they turned 3, I had my kids on bicycles connected to a home generator and a battery pack. They are growing up strong and healthy and we're off the grid. Can't wait for the new baby to turn 3 as we're planning to move up to a bigger TV. Thank you for the wise advice.

wind turbines also take 50 gallons of oil to stay lubricated and are subject to leaking. they also have a brake similar to automotive brakes and when the brakes stops working(overheating or loss of friction material) they usually catch fire

I'm amazed that this is allowed to be seen in 2023. Australia is just starting to go down this path, and already our power bills have doubled, and our current government is hell-bent on continuing.

13:38 “I’m not actively trying to disparage renewables” Title of the video: Renewable Energy is a Scam

Thank you 42 for addressing this huge misconception.... Whenever I tried to explain anyone about this , I was labelled a "climate change denier"...

I believe windmills and solar are fantastic for the off grid homestead. That is IF you can convince your government to allow a slight bit of autonomy in your life. But nuclear is the way for big citys and suburbs, even most rural towns.

I like how this is a serious issue and the music is so upbeat and cheery.