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

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

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.

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.

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.

UKposts 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.

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.

12:15 - Using decommed nuclear weapons fuel as fuel for electricity is almost literally the nations "beating their swords into plowshares".

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

As one of the many supervillains that reside in Gotham City, I am interested in knowing more about this exciting new bat-killing technology.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Nuclear Energy: **Is safe** Every politician: “I’m going to pretend like I didn’t see that”

I didn't expect him to start talking about thorium, but its a good thing that thorium molten salt reactors are gaining attention. Thanks!

The hornsea project one claiming it costs ‘4.2 billion of taxpayers pounds’ ignores any benefits of the project

Let's keep things in perspective. Windmills only account for ~1.5% of all inanimate bird kills. 8% with other towers, and 91% with motor vehicles.

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

No worries; There's plenty of wind power being generated at UK's parliament.

Here in America, many of us made the OBVIOUS observation that IF renewable energy were a profitable endeavor then business would not need HUGE federal incentives to get into it. Alas, our government wasn’t listening. Now the embarrassment of their colossal failure keeps the expense and ghastly incentives going.

Ironically, I got an ad for a solar power company in the middle of watching this.

"Hey, 42 here..." is what I hear every time...

In my county in the US, there’s a nuclear power plant. It’s one of many owned across many states. It’s the largest employer in the county and you can tell who works for them. Their pay is excellent and they give back to the community. They also open about 80% of their 30K acres to the public for hunting, fishing, camping and recreation.

Congratulations on your book.I hope all goes well with the endeavor ❤

Something funny is that my city has some wind turbines. Situated at the mouth of a canyon, a ton of wind often blows through. Great, right? Well, not really. For whatever reason, at times with a massive amount wind they just aren't spinning. Might be for safety reasons, but it just baffles me how they aren't even on at what seems to be the best time for it. Either that, or only a few of them are on.

He totally overlooked the fact that his mustache can power an entire country.

Legend has it, movement from his right eyebrow creates enough energy to power NYC

This makes me want to go out and tell the world all about how nuclear is the key to saving the world and how it can even get rid of the warhead issue as well. Just imagine if we could educate people on how safe and efficient nuclear is compared to everything else and then add the final nail to the coffin with the claim that we wouldn't have to worry nearly as much about warheads if we just invested into nuclear powerplants. Oh it makes me sad... the truths about solar panels too

Thoughty, great vid. Much truth that people don't actually hear about these days. They hear renewable and fail to understand what the actual outcomes are. I'm sad Australia moved away from nuclear a whole ago, we really need to get back to it. This was made 4 years ago, but the renewable fad has only gotten worse and even more severe at the expense of much. Many thanks, love your work!

Solar energy is useful for small remote community where the cost of delivering the energy to them is excessive (cable, transformers, etc.) .

I have a large team of hamsters running round a cage attached to a generator for the small amount of electricity I use. The down side is the cost of hamster feed and replacement hamsters. There is a world shortage of hamsters which I was not told about before committing fully to hamster power. I tried rats but they are lazy and fight with the hamsters.

I can see in our hunger for energy we can do little for our environment on individual levels. I can only hope that it will add up though. Thus, sometimes i go out of my way to reduce waste from packages. Hope it will help on the long run

We just had a project presentation about this topic and I cant believe I didnt find this video earlier! This would have been so hlpful :C

Thorium, named after the Norse god Thor, the god of Thunder, Strength, and Might. Quite suiting as the name of a power source

I got 2 renewable energy ads while watching this that I'd never seen before. 😂

This is a 4 year old video. Battery installations in 2023 were large enough they are listed as a new power source now. It dwarfs the batteries installed in 2020.

There are those of us who have been pointing out these shortcomings since the idea was introduced... We're actually a pretty significant segment of society, just not very vocal... I'm very interested in thorium reactors, now. Been trying to figure out how to power charitably run ships (like the medical or disaster relief ones) without the massive overhead of oil. This may or may not provide solutions, but it's interesting.

«The most prominent today is Germany with 40-50% renewable energy». Over 96% of the energy produced in Norway is hydropower.

I guess it's time to take down those darn panels from roof and build a nuclear reactor in basement.

I read about the Thorium reactor several years ago, I just forgot what the fuels name was. It sounded very promising then, and still does now, too. We don't need to be pushing for less useful and and less reliable means of energy production, nor ones which create new and costly to dispose of waste products either. Nuclear has been and perhaps could become the even better option.

4 year old video that was misinformed when made. And now battery storage has shown to be a huge benefit for the grid in general. Not just wind and solar.

The stigma against using Nuclear energy is ridiculous tbh. Theres hundreds of nuclear warheads just sitting in the basments of powerful countries which could potentially be dismantled and used in energy production instead..

"Renewable Energy is a scam" here before a title change.

Molten Salt Thorium Reactors can be built small enough to run a car or large enough to run a city. But there is one company that has designed them the size to power a large hospital or manufacturing plant. At that size, they can be installed for a city in a series of them. So if one has a problem, you can change it out like a light bulb.

So how do you feel about tidal generators? The waves almost never stop. We have barely scraped these generators that create power from wave action , under water current generators.

One of your clips of a protest showed a lady with a sign that said "the laws of physics don't negotiate." How ironic.

The miss information people spread about nuclear is so frustrating. Here in Australia most the politicians are terrified of it and just instantly dismiss it

Ballshart! I'm getting my electric from a local hydroelectric plant. It has just about zero environmental impact.

Wow no mention of the giant gear box on each wind turbine that needs it's oil regularly changed

*Solar power:* _"I'm only efficient when the sun shines!"_ *United Kingdom left the chat*

He's slowly becoming a 1950s dad. Let him continue.

I was thinking of getting solar panels but this video convinced me to get a small oil processor in my backyard.

Pro nuclear energy doesn’t need to be anti-green energy.

I am from India and I can attest to this. This weekend I'm going on a thorium hunting trip for my homemade thorium reactor.

TL:DR Go nuclear, deconstruct coal power plants, use green energy as a supplementary power source.

kind of surprised this is still something you can find and watch. days like these ...

One day the trash and rubbish we throw away will have every once of energy stripped of it to power our life.

thanks for actually looking at thorium reactors. most people who take on the topic skip right over it wholesale.

Renewables are not the scam we fell for, the attack on nuclear by traditional energy sources was the scam we fell for that led to these less desirable alternatives.

Hello everyone. Germany has gone completely mad. Best regards from Germany.

The bigger question is how much availability of the minerals needed to produce all these "renewable" energy sources? At current mining rates there is no possibility of actually switching to these sources in many many generations... and that likely doesn't account for what happens when some of these energy producing devices need to be replaced after a few decades... if they last even that long, or if a mineral source all of a sudden "dries up". I looked at switching to a solar wind setup for a home a few years back. The cost benefit was not there so I skipped it. Doing that move was a whole lifestyle change that included re-gearing up for appliances by throwing out what we had to go to units that used less overall energy or used the same energy but over a longer window of time to reduce the instantaneous loading of my grid. The core "reasons" to make such a move did not make enough sense to do so from cost benefit, waste reduction, energy consumption, reliability, storage. All the same problems as are being faced on a larger scale except I was not considering time to implement as it was only a house. Most stuff is already available. Good luck doing this on any large scale.

"I'm not trying to disparage renewables" *looks at title*

It is angular momentum, not centrifugal force that keeps the heavy turbine spinning a while.

Nuclear are significantly more expensive than wind turbines and we still don’t know what to do with the nuclear waste.

1) as mentioned in the video, modern renewable energy production units as solar panels or wind turbines can create synthethic inertia due to batteries or capacitors, they can easily be made mandatory by law 2) the power usage in industrialized countries borders on the equivalent of using your stove to heat your flat while having all windows open at -10°C outside, we have to reduce power usage in total, too 3) a finer, more flexible power grid can aid in saving power as each unit can contain batteries that take up excess power and can also be switched off if it's not needed instantaneously - in contrast to the power plants that HAVE to keep going to keep up their inertia 4) solar panels can be placed on the roofs of nearly all buildings, an area that is usually occupied by neither humans nor wild animals. Also solar parks can have raised panels that allow for wildlife to exist below and enjoy the shade the panels provide (something that's not uninteresting in times of climate change). Studies in Germany also showed that you can use panels above rows of crops like grapes or hops without impacting the plants' efficiency

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

The porn star moustache is really getting out of hand

A couple of physicists recently calculated that in order to trade the current vehicles to "electric vehicles" would cost in excess of $100 trillion USD ..... and it would take every battery Factory on Earth working 24/7 365 for over 400 years to keep up with the current number of vehicles..... not to even address the demand in 400 years so Yeah .....

Glad to see my country's making progress in something novel and appealing like Thorium based power! Hopefully it turns out to be good material for power as expected!

you just hear the happy music as he's talking about birds dying XD

I actually heard somebody thought windmills help cool the planet down like big fans 😅

1:20 wrong. 35% electricity from renewables, half of that percentage PRIMARY energy.

Great video. Finaly someone who is thinking the same as me. Especially with rising electricity cost due to stupid german reneable energy policy.

I wish channels like this would cite their sources. I would love to read where this information was collected.

Been on solar for 5 years now with no issues and my total all up cost was about 3k. But I am currently saving up for a small nuclear reactor.

They said all these deaths would be saved by stopping smoking, but actually deaths have gone up since the decline of smoking

I'm a control room operator. I'm nuclear and coal fire trained. Any condition that results in the inability to produce steam will instanty trip the turbine generator. There is no reserve momentun. In fact, the grid would turn the generator into a motor, running in the reverse direction. For this reason, gerators are equipt with reverse power trip protection.

“Countries such as Africa” ahh yes... Africa, my favorite country

Renewable energy: Causes harm Us Humans: You have become the very thing you swore to destroy.

All of the his main problems with clean energy could be solved by building it in the desert

VERY VERY INFORMATIVE... THANK YOU..

I leave for a couple of months and come back to this man having a 70s mustache

Somalia be like "you can't create carbon emissions when there is no power".

Ever seen the *actual survey* that came up with that 97% number (0:35)? Ever seen it actually cited? There is one citation in the IPCC report on that number (which is were everybody got it), but the citation is to a paper that itself gives that statistic, but doesn't contain or cite a survey that backs it up. So where did that number actually come from, if there is no actual survey of scientists behind it? (And exactly how would one go about surveying "all the scientists in the world", anyway?)

0:37 It doesn't matter what percentage of scientists "BELIEVE" in something. 2:15 problem solved with black paint on one of the turbine's wings...

Meanwhile in Germany, is decommissioning it's Nuclear Power Plants and restarting it's coal power plants.

6:00 - 6:26 everything in this section is completely wrong. Rotational inertia is only useful for frequency regulation during very brief load excursions. It is not a source of generated power. (They actually tried to use it as such at Chernobyl, and that [plus incompetence] is what led to the accident). Even with the immense mass of a turbine rotor, it will still begin spinning down immediately when input power is lost. It only has to slow down by 0.9% before any power generated would be useless due to under frequency. Also they don't store as much rotational inertia as you would think. Although their mass is very heavy, most of it is in the center shaft. The portion with the best second moment of inertia (the turbine blades) is fairly light. The generator breaker will trip automatically as soon as the frequency goes under 59.3-59.5Hz, at which point the generator is no longer connected to the grid anyway and the remaining spin down of the rotor is useless. By the way all this happens in a fraction of a second, not minutes. We use cycles as a time unit. 60 cycles = 1 second. Rotor will be under frequency in 15-20 cycles, and it will take another 5-8 cycles for the generator breaker to trip. So in half a second, its all over.

I'm sure that if the events in Chornobyl never happened, nuclear energy would be so much more popular

The planet goes through life cycles continuously. You'd think scientists would know this.

One of my electronic engineering teachers was preaching this about renewable energies 12 years ago and was very pro nuclear. Which i thought was odd at the time but then slowly became my exact take on the whole subject. But people really are afraid of nuclear energy

Fear sells far more easily than nuclear energy.

ESS teacher here. To be honest, I used to be very against nuclear before a referendum was held about the future of the nuclear power here in Bulgaria. Still I thought that it calls for serious research into the issue and I did it over several months... and it ended with me completely changing my position on it. Still, it needs to be mentioned that building new nuclear power plants is not only met with aggressive opposition by most people ( I don't blame them as the issue has been a scare monster for a long time) but it is also extremely expensive and takes much longer time than installing the wind turbines. And this is a serious issue. Oh, I have read that China has at least one relatively small thorium plant already in exploitation and is building at least four more ( this info is a little outdated as I have no means of getting first hand info about the developments). In reality, there is NO way of electricity production that is free of disadvantages so it is a matter of carefully thought out mix with as much phasing out of fossil fuels as possible. But the latter is a matter of politics...and there the wheel might grind to a halt.

It's angular momentum that keeps the turbines rotating not centrifugal force! People misuse the word centrifugal force so often I tend to avoid using at all as a result.