John D. Rockefeller, an American businessman, did not coin the term “fossil fuel” to trick people into thinking oil was a rarity. Climate disinformation in the past, often paid for by fossil fuel interests, often related to false ideas that global warming is a scam or that the fossil fuel industry has been essential to driving economic growth. Fossil fuel companies have intentionally spread climate disinformation for decades, knowing that their products were harmful to people and the planet.
A viral climate conspiracy theory suggests that a new plan by Oxford’s government to use cameras and fines to limit through-traffic in congested city centers and reduce automobile pollution is a viral climate conspiracy. The fossil fuel industry uses anonymous “dark money” contributions to fund misinformation about clean energy and promote nonrenewable resources.
An explosive hearing held by the US Senate Committee on the Budget has unveiled more details of Big Oil’s campaign to block climate action. An unprecedented wave of lawsuits has led to America’s petroleum giants facing a reckoning for the devastation caused by fossil fuels. The conspiracy theory holds that a global elite is planning to shut down society and restrict personal freedoms, such as eating meat and driving gas-powered vehicles. Climate change denial is a form of science denial characterized by rejecting, refusing to acknowledge, disputing, or fighting the issue.
📹 The Biggest Lie About Renewable Energy
Oil companies lied to you about renewable energy and it’s time to fix it! Join our mailing list: …
Why is it called fossil fuel?
Fossil fuels, including coal, crude oil, and natural gas, are formed from the fossilized remains of plants and animals that lived millions of years ago. Oil, or petroleum, is a liquid fossil fuel made up mostly of hydrocarbons and can be found in underground reservoirs, sedimentary rock cracks, or tar sands near the earth’s surface. It is extracted through drilling, land or sea, or strip mining. Once extracted, oil is transported to refineries to be transformed into usable fuels like gasoline, propane, kerosene, jet fuel, and plastics.
Petroleum products supply about 35% of U. S. energy needs, with the transportation sector consuming the most. In 2016, U. S. oil consumption was 10% below the record high of 2005 and only 3% higher than during the 1973-74 embargo by OPEC. Demand for oil plummeted during the COVID-19 pandemic but has since risen to its highest point since 2019. U. S. consumption of petroleum products is forecast to decrease through 2038, as fuel efficiency standards lead to cleaner-running vehicles.
What are the pros and cons of fossil fuels?
Fossil fuels are not renewable energy sources and are not environmentally friendly. They are also more expensive, easier to store and transport, and more reliable than renewable energy. Despite the shift towards green energy, fossil fuels remain the most widely used energy sources, accounting for approximately 80 percent of total energy consumption. While they are beneficial, they can be dangerous if used improperly. The main reason why we should not replace fossil fuels with renewable energy is to ensure the sustainability of our energy system.
Are companies to blame for global warming?
Since 1988, only 100 companies have been responsible for 71 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and only 25 corporations and state-owned organizations were found to be responsible for over 50 percent of global industrial emissions. Common solutions to tackle climate change revolve around consumer choice and changes individuals can make in their everyday lives, such as buying green or sustainable products, using public transport or a bike, and becoming vegan or vegetarian.
However, these solutions do not consider those unable to make them, as green products cost almost 50 more than non-green alternatives. Many working-class people and those living in areas where public transport is unavailable may not be able to afford green products.
Corporations can easily choose to make their products greener and more sustainable by using alternative methods. However, many corporations prioritize profits over climate change, unaware of the effects their actions have on the planet. Exxon, a multinational gas and oil company, was revealed to have been aware of climate change for decades but led efforts to block measures that would cut emissions. Many advertisements and changes to the way products are made or packaged are likely done due to pressure or because the company believes they can make more profit from it.
Some corporations have advocated for cleaner energy through their advertisements, but how much of this is just to make themselves look good? Oil and gas company BP spent millions advertising their cleaner natural gas and low-carbon energy in 2019, while over 96 percent of their annual funds were still being spent on oil and gas. Politicians also seem to advocate for change while contributing to the issue themselves, showing the true colors of those who are supposed to be advocating for these changes.
What is the argument against fossil fuels?
Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, contribute to air pollution, health issues, and climate change. Modern life relies on these fuels, from electricity to cars. Policy decisions and industry actions can make some communities more vulnerable to climate change’s harms. A study has been conducted to test for health-damaging air pollutants in unburned natural gas used in homes, highlighting the importance of addressing these issues to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change.
What fossil fuel companies are lying about climate change?
The fossil fuel industry, including BP, Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips, has been deceiving the public about their commitment to achieving the Paris Climate Agreement and net zero emissions by 2050. A congressional investigation spanning the last two years reveals that the industry has never been part of the solution to the climate crisis. Instead, Big Oil is actively fighting to maintain fossil fuels for decades to come. The Senate Committee on Budget recently held a hearing on Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak: Big Oil’s Evolving Efforts to Avoid Accountability for Climate Change.
The committee published a joint bicameral congressional staff report detailing the depth of the fossil fuel industry’s deception and campaigns to block climate action. The industry has chosen profit and shareholder value over people’s lives for over 60 years. It is time for Big Oil accountability, and this joint investigation by the Senate Budget Committee and House Oversight Committee is just the beginning.
What is wrong with fossil fuels?
Burning fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and gas, not only meets our energy needs but also contributes to global warming pollution. These fuels produce large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapping heat in the atmosphere and leading to climate change. In the United States, burning fossil fuels, particularly for power and transportation, accounts for about three-quarters of carbon emissions. Coal-fired power plants also generate 35% of dangerous mercury emissions, two-thirds of sulfur dioxide emissions, and the majority of soot in the air. Fossil fuel-powered vehicles contribute to poisonous carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide, causing smog and respiratory illnesses.
Why shouldn’t we use fossil fuels?
Burning natural gas releases pollutants that cause health issues such as early death, heart attacks, respiratory disorders, stroke, asthma, and absenteeism. It has also been linked to autism spectrum disorder and Alzheimer’s disease. Policy decisions and industry actions make some communities more vulnerable to climate change harms. A study has been conducted to test for health-damaging air pollutants in unburned natural gas used in homes, highlighting the importance of addressing these issues to protect public health.
What are the alarming facts about fossil fuels?
Fossil fuels are non-renewable energy resources with a finite supply and the potential for significant environmental impact. The combustion of fossil fuels results in the emission of carbon dioxide, which contributes to the greenhouse effect, and sulfur dioxide, which has been linked to respiratory issues.
What is the truth about fossil fuels?
Fossil fuels, formed from the decomposition of buried carbon-based organisms, are non-renewable sources of energy, accounting for around 80 percent of the world’s energy supply. They are also used in the production of plastic, steel, and various products. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified fossil fuel emissions as the primary cause of global warming, with coal being the dirtiest and responsible for over 0. 3C of the 1C increase in global average temperatures. In 2018, 89 of global CO2 emissions came from fossil fuels and industry.
What is the definition of fossil fuels?
Fossil fuel refers to non-renewable energy sources like coal, coal products, natural gas, derived gas, crude oil, petroleum products, and non-renewable wastes. Originating from plants and animals from the geological past, these fuels have been used for decades to meet human energy needs. However, their combustion releases carbon into the Earth’s atmosphere, releasing carbon stored hundreds of millions of years ago.
Around 80 percent of all manmade CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions originate from fossil fuel combustion. Examples of fossil fuels include patent fuel, coke oven coke, gas coke, coal tar, and brown coal briquettes.
What is the definition of fossil fuel pollution?
Fossil fuels, such as cars and trucks, contribute to the release of nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere, causing smog and acid rain. These emissions are primarily from coal-fired power plants and large industrial operations. Nitrogen is the most abundant element in the air and is essential for plant and animal life. Human activities such as electric power generation, industry, transportation, and agriculture can disrupt the natural balance of nitrogen in the environment.
Nitrogen oxides, along with ammonia, are the most common nitrogen-related compounds emitted into the air by human activities. The majority of nitrogen oxides released in the U. S. are from the burning of fossil fuels associated with transportation and industry.
📹 What the Fossil Fuel Industry Doesn’t Want You To Know | Al Gore | TED
In a blistering talk, Nobel Laureate Al Gore looks at the two main obstacles to climate solutions and gives his view of how we might …
The lack of intelligence and integrity in this article was too much. I have been an engineer working in the energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy conservation industry for 35 years. I don’t know where these two got their information, but it is a complete bunk. I would be very impressed if you could get a solar company to install a solar panel for $0.50. A typical solar installation for a 5 kW system for a house is $15k. If you want a battery, which you do, you will pay an additional $5k. Solar prices have decreased over the past several decades. Why exaggerate? Their ignorance of renewable energy is only surpassed by their ignorance of the economy and taxation. I am a proponent of renewable energy. I am an opponent of lying. Especially with a article that claims it is dispelling lies.
I’m an engineer who operates the power grid. What I can say is this article is worth a junior year college presentation in engineering school. Thousands of engineers in transmission system operators aren’t just sleeping in their job & they know the grid won’t be 60% more efficient just by using IOT. Do these really guys think the current generators aren’t communication with each other?
As someone who works with batteries my fear is the lithium wars. We really need an alternative to lithium before we can make every car electric. Also lithium is hard to recycle and pretty bad on landfills. I do think its better than fossil fuels and all the damage from that but I really hope we can get a better battery soon. As for the lithium wars. I fear south america is the next “middle east” in terms of proxy wars. Australia is currently the highest producer of lithium but South America is very promising in its deposits and I fear what we are seeing happen in Venezuela and what has happened in in most South American countries over the past few years is The US, Russia, China, etc… purposely destabilizing the region. I am not all conspiracy theory minded about this and paranoid but I do fear this future.
I live in the Antelope Valley, which is a high desert area in Southern California. I want to preface this by noting that I am for solar and have a solar system that powers my home. With that being said, the solar farms that have sprouted around the high desert are astounding in both good and bad ways. It’s great that they can generate so much electricity, but they devastate the local ecosystem. From the front of my house, I can see the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. During late March and early August, those foothills would turn a beautiful orange, as the wild poppies would bloom. Now, It’s a sea of black solar panels. A large portion of the wild life that used to live there is gone. People think “Oh it’s a desert. Nothing lives there” but that is totally wrong. There is a large variety of wildlife, from coyotes, deer, bobcats & desert tortoises to a large variety of ground squirrels, quail, burrowing owls and hundreds of cold blooded species. The majority of these creatures are displaced with these large, fenced off solar farms that can cover hundreds of acres. The same goes for the wind farms that, while not as bad, still devastate the local ecosystem with all the access roads, buildings and cement pads that are needed for the thousands of wind turbines that dot the Tehachapi Pass. We really need to focus on modern Nuclear power plants.
Arguing that we need to phase out oil and coal is 100% correct. However, I feel this article argues its point in a sensationalized and frankly dishonest way. The “energy from the sun hitting the earth” statistic is technically accurate, but irrelevant. We don’t have anywhere near the technology or infrastructure to harvest even a fraction of that energy. The article acts as if doing so is trivial and the only reason we haven’t done it already is due to Big Oil Propaganda. There is a lot of talk about countries setting goals and announcing their intentions for everything from renewable energy to electric cars. The article treats these goals and intentions as fait accompli, despite decades of nations failing to meet their carbon emission targets or straight-up ignoring them. It would make a lot more sense to look at already accomplished projects to get a real sense of the cost and scale, rather than look at what countries “intend” to do and what they expect it to cost. The China data in particular is extremely suspect, given that they have consistently and provably lied about their pollution levels for decades. As a side note, Germany recently had a significant increase in its carbon emissions due to a strong anti-nuclear movement forcing them to rely more heavily on coal. Political “intentions” are far too fragile to be relied upon. The IMF subsidy study makes two major mistakes. First, it has an extremely broad definition of “subsidy” for the specific purpose of inflating the figure to something more impressive.
I am an electrical engineer who has been working in the energy industry for 20 years (both fossil fuels and renewables) and recently completed a master of economics with my dissertation being on the economic viability of technologies used in the energy transition. This article was put together by people who obviously did not spend more than 5 minutes researching. It’s a complex issue, so maybe they misinterpreted much of the supposed books/experts they consulted, but overall it’s pretty sloppy and they get a lot wrong, from both the engineering perspective and the economic perspective.
The article glossed over one of the most important parts: renewable energy sources are not good options for a “base load” of power supply because their supply is variable. The only way renewables can replace existing base load sources is to create power storage options for holding the power generated at a scale that simply does not exist today. That’s the obstacle that needs to be cleared: storage of power that’s generated in excess of current requirements. For obvious reasons, solar only works when the sun is up. And no smart grid, however much it’s hyped, is going to be able to address the fact that the entire United States is in darkness at the same time – which means solar can NOT be a reliable supply of power without some way to store that power at night. Sure, it’s possible – but without some really exceptional advancements in electrical storage and massive reductions in cost per megawatt hour for storage you’re not really capturing the true cost as compared to fossil fuels. For that matter, you’ve also ignored the potential that radioactives play in our energy future. The most modern version of a nuclear power plant, if built today, would probably be a molten salt reactor with thorium fuel – which is not subject to the kinds of accidents that older nuclear power technology were subject to. And they are suitable for providing a base load and aren’t impacted by darkness or calm winds… Just recommending some additional thinking on this and reflection on if the “group think” is leading everyone astray.
Almost no mention of nuclear or how Germany actually increased CO2 emission after 2011 when they started to shut of their nuclear plants. You gloss over energy storage, when the technology is almost non existent on a power grid scale and is absolutely necessary if you want to switch to 100% renuables.
There’s some misnomers in this. A 60% increase in efficiency for wind turbines, isn’t the wind turbines getting more efficient, but rather a decrease in the system losses. Due to physics, the peak efficiency of wind turbines is ~40%, similar to internal combustion if the heat is used to heat or cool spaces. The turbine fins are pretty much tapped on efficiency as well. While solar panels are getting more efficient, we can only bank on current levels of efficiency (~23% not in labs), not expected future results, which may not come. Nuclear is currently the black sheep and no one seems interested (in the west) to build 4th Gen power plants. Finally it has to be stated that like most things in life, the transition will be a 2 steps forward and 1 step backwards. For example the molten salt solar towers that have now been shutdown in the USA not because of oil, but because they never reached advertised output and money out for repairs and investors > money in from sales.
The “Huge growth” of the 1950’s just so happened to occur at the same time that just about all the other leading developing countries were trying to rebuild all of their destroyed factories. The United States will never experience that level of relative economic dominance again. I love the idea of renewable energy, but there are too many things said in this article without proper context.
The main reason the US had strong growth during those super high tax rates is because there was literally no other country in the world with a modern, functioning manufacturing and industrial sectors. Europe was still bombed out and recovering, as was Japan. China’s manufacturing prowess hadn’t awaken yet and the USSR was the USSR. The US was the only country capable of massive, large scale manufacturing and industrial production. That is extremely far from the case currently. You cannot look at tax rates, production, and GDP from that period and compare it to this period. Things are vastly different.
Greetings from Germany! We in Germany will have a lot of problems without our coal power plants as there are just a few nuclear power plants, which the politicians are ALSO willing to shut down. So the Problem is: How to secure the base load of our electricity network? The Answer is: We buy electricity from other countries around. A Professor from University in a city called “Cottbus” told an interviewer, that Germany had several issues with keeping the base load within the last Couple years. The solution was firing up coal power plants in Countries in South-East Europe to save Germany from a Blackout. This has recently happened in the Winter from 2021 to 2022. In Conclusion: Germany relies more and more on renewable energies, which is not a constant power source so we need to buy electricity form countries which use coal so we can avoid a Blackout.
You can’t bring up Germany when talking about renewable energy. Right now they are failing miserably, there power grid is drastically under prepared, with the required infrastructure being created at a snails pace. It’s so bad that they have to pay neighboring countries to take in electricity that their grid can’t support!
If we’re being science based, then comparing energy potentials of nuclear against wind and solar is like night and day. Nuclear is a constant, zero emission energy source that has magnitudes higher output that can legitimately power our societies…and largely able to do this in any environment. Wind farms are impractical to build in many places where the air pressure isn’t fluxuating enough to drive the turbines to make any appreciable power. Solar energy suffers a similar fate. Many places don’t get enough direct sunshine to properly optimize a huge solar panel array. Also, I might add that solar arrays and wind farms share a common hang up that is extremely problematic; it’s their footprints. The kind of solar and wind setups that are of a scale to produce a decent power output take up an enormous amount of space. Maybe this is ok for some massive solar array in a Nevada desert, but if it is needed in more habitable environments then acres and acres of land must be cut down and cleared out to make way for these. Perhaps when we are able to launch solar arrays/reflectors as satellites, then that would give us some serious access to the tremendous energy our Sun has to offer us. Until then, our current photovoltaic cell technologies and methods are only capturing an unbelievably small fraction of a fraction of the Sun’s energy. Until we colonize space or find a stable method of commercial fusion energy, the planet’s best hope for leaving the fossil fuel era as efficiently and responsibly as possible is nuclear fission reactors.
Most of these arguments could apply to nuclear energy. I think a lot of people would support wind and solar if they subsidised the off peak energy with nuclear but they don’t, they use coal and gas. The future should be nuclear fission, backed with solar and wind and later replaced with nuclear fusion
The problem with renewable energy is that it is dirty(in electrical meaning) since it is intermittent. I am pro-solar, tide, and wind-based power. But the baseline must be backed by heavy turbines from nuclear or at least hydro to safety net the grid from collapsing. It is not ecological to think that battery alone would be able to sustain the grid in high-demand moments.
Sorry, but what you present here is pure nonsense. I live in Germany and we already import lots of energy at a very high price since we increasingly produce too little energy due to shutting down power plants. It is true that our government wants to shut down even more power plants while supporting the idea to increase usage of energy by huge amounts through the use of electric mobility (e-cars etc.). The only problem along with that concept, we produce lesser and lesser energy but use want to use more and more of it at the same time. No guess how the energy deficit is solved?! Yes, correct … we import energy from our neighbours who produce energy by burning coal, gas or the use of old nuclear plants. The only advantage, we produce less CO2 by having others produce ‘dirty’ energy for us instead. The price for electricity over here in Germany has skyrocketed over the years and is even going to get much higher in the upcoming future.
I think my two issues with this article is two things: 1) It claims that the fossil fuel industry tries to confuse us, but it isn’t clear what things they have done. Many of us believe there is misinformation about global warming and renewable information produced by fossil fuel companies, but the article just repeats this belief and move on from there. I would like a few examples. 2) This article jumps to government investment and policies as the solution to how we transition society into the renewable economy. The issue of relying on government intervention in the United States specifically is how it goes both ways. The U.S. has a long lasting problem with its relationship between corporations and public policy. The reason U.S. was 30 years behind its international partners in outlawing lead paint is because corporate lobbies have huge influences on elections and, by extension, who controls policy. Until the problem of current corporations protecting their short term interests through government policy that harms our ability to transition to new, more efficient economic states, we should instead invest as private citizens in what we want. Buy electric cars, purchase power from renewable power companies. If you want something, someone will sell it to you and if enough people want it, it will become more efficient and competitive. The politicians usually can’t intervene faster than consumers can buy and shake up the market.
7:44 They’re correlating 2 things that really have nothing to do with each other, the high tax rates and the strength of the economy, and omitting some details about the tax code during 1950s and 1960s. First, the economy wasn’t strong because of those high statutory tax rates because hardly anyone paid those tax rates. The tax law at that time had numerous tax exemptions and income tax shelters that enabled the wealthy to pay a much lower effective tax rate. It annoys me when people try to make these simplistic and false arguments about how our economy can absorb much higher tax rates. There’s a much more scientific way to determine optimal/ideal tax rates that will determine which top tax rate will generate the most revenue while having the least negative impact on the economy.
France tried a 70 percent tax on the rich under President Francois Hollande. The rich French people fled the country. Because it failed they stopped the tax under the next administration. California is also trying to highly tax the super rich and the rich Californians are fleeing the state. It doesn’t work so try some other idea. “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana.
California is a great example. Brown outs in the summer are tight. “Once again, a big part of the problem is that California regulators have left the state dangerously exposed to buying large amounts of imported electricity on the spot market during peak periods on days when there is extreme energy demand—what Mr. Wolak likened to going to the airport on Thanksgiving and expecting to fly standby.” Only this time, the crunchtime for the state’s grid operator isn’t the actual power demand peak in late afternoon—it is when the sun starts to fall in early evening, and the renewable energy the state is increasingly dependent on begins to wane. On many days, California’s grid operator now has to find 10,000 to 15,000 megawatts of replacement power—sometimes 25% to 50% of what it needs to keep the lights on—during a three-hour period as solar, and to a lesser degree, wind power, falls off. California often relies on imported power from other states to help fill its void. But when a historic heat wave gripped the Western U.S. this month, the state struggled to find a way to replace up to 8,000 megawatts of disappearing renewable energy each evening. It came up short on some days by as much as half that amount and had to call for rolling blackouts on Aug. 14 and 15.” – The Wall Street Journal, Aug 23 2020
I life in Germany, we have the highest energy costs in all of Europe. Our so called „Energiewende” is a complete mess. We only hav so much „green” capacity because the government literally guarantees a profitable price for this energy. Therefore on windy an sunny days we dump more then half of that energy into the ground. While in the winter we import power from Poland(coal).
Companies pay all kinds of taxes outside of income, including taxes on their payroll. Amazon paid $2.6 billion in corporate tax in 2018 and reported $3.4 billion in tax expense over the previous three years. You’re muddying the waters with your own simple thinking. They just reinvested their income into the business so it wasn’t revenue. Like when you pay into a 401k. When the money is withdrawn, then you pay tax.
A professor told me around 2012 during my geology studies that the “Green Revolution” would happen when all the groups that controlled fossil fuels at the time would decide to transfer to green by popular demand or when they owned those new techs. With oil companies re labeling themselves as “energy” companies and investing heavily into green tech together with big car manufacturers i see his point. Those were the companies with the capital to invest and develop new tech. “Small” start ups like Tesla are outliers not the rule.
Wind turbines were built all around my rural home….when I moved here there were none. I can tell you this: I hate them. I hate living near them. I’m up right now 11pm and I can hear the one they built closest to my house…INSIDE my house. I moved here and built an energy efficient 900 square foot house. It was my dream. I had found heaven in the peaceful, rural atmosphere. Now the horizons look dystopic….dotted with hundreds of giant white, spinning, noisy machines. It used to be just the sound of the birds and breeze in the trees….now I seldom have a single day without the noisy turbine, steadily strumming away…it’s LOUD. They get tax breaks, meanwhile my property taxes went up over 70% in one year after the turbines were built within sight of my house! Talk about insult to injury. Yes. I absolutely hate them here in #millscountytexas I hope for their destruction every single day.
I agree with almost everything presented in this article. One thing to note: (purely) electric cars and transportation are definitely not the solution for the mobility sector. Lithium batteries and similar chemical technologies only make sense on a small scale. The environmental impact of producing batteries and the increasing inefficiency with increasing storage capacity/weight is a big problem. Transportation, especially for long distance and heavy weight vehicles, can not be powered by electric batteries. Fueling vehicles with hydrogen is a great solution for this. The technology is save and ready for a big scale launch into the market. But here we got the chicken and egg problem: no existing infrastructure means no incentive for industries and private sector to purchase hydrogen cars and trucks. This goes the other way around. Without public subsidies and funding we are losing valuable time in the fight against climate change. more information: ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/News/190815_LCA-BEV-FCEV_Results_EnglishVersion.pdf
There is a huge problem here. People tend to automatically think of renewables as good. Their operation doesn’t directly lead to air pollution or carbon emmisions and they are “natural”. For a start this is an appeal to nature fallacy(look it up). The other thing is you can’t just look at a renewable energy technology in a vacuum. They keep claiming that renewables now produce energy cheaper than fossil fuels. While directly that is true, it isn’t true when you look at the grid those renewables exist in. Because wind are solar are intermittent, largely uncontrollable sources you must have technologies in your grid that can compensate for sudden changes in output and the complete loss of energy production from those sources. So for every solar or wind farm that gets built, guess what? A natural gas plant gets built too to deal with this problem. You might be tempted to say “oh, well that natural gas plant only has to work when the renewables aren’t so it’s still a net positive”. But again, things aren’t so simple. Not only did you have to build 2 sources of power to do the job that one could do on it’s own, driving up cost. It also increases emmisions because the “simple cycle” natural gas plants that can react quickly enough to sudden changes in the output of renewables don’t have very high efficiency and their emmisions spike every time they have to quickly ramp up power. I’d argue that if the output of the renewables vary too much it would be better for the environment to just use a more efficient “combined cycle” natural gas plant and just forgo the renewables entirely.
8:59 the eight richest individuals have provided more things of substance to society than the bottom 50%. Not against increasing taxes on the rich but rich people can’t just be seen as a bucket of free money. True question is how to get the bottom 50% to contribute more. I like the idea of free education and more opportunity provided to them.
I’m all for taxing the rich, but the economics of renewable energy are more complex than that. There is currently a 3 year backlog on transformers which are essential to delivering the green transition and “smart grids” you speak of. That is due to a lack of raw materials, which has been driven by lower production and opposition to mining. Also carbon taxes are a Reagan era free market solution, a tax on the working class, and will lead to political backlash. Saying “vote for science” is a total political dead end.
So…. 2 things I have issues with. 1. The batteries of electric cars, mining for the resources for them? What sort of vehicles do you think are mining the lithium and these car batteries are not efficient and fill up our landfills. 2. On the taxation of the rich? You claim these companies paid 0 taxes yet, you didn’t explain why they paid 0. Do you understand the tax code?
I was completely on board until the idea of connecting a global power grid controlled over the internet, or at least that’s how I interpreted it (do correct me if I’m wrong). In my studies as a Computer Science major, I’ve learned that sensitive things such as bank info, personal info, etc etc, while we DO put that on the internet, the internet was never intended for such information to be circulated. The internet was designed for open communication of ideas and data. But when you put something like personal or sensitive data into the mix, that’s when you have problems. This is where I get to my point, If you create a global IoT power grid, the world belongs to hackers. It doesn’t take too much digging just to see how much havoc hackers can cause by breaking into incredibly sensitive infrastructure. For example, the hackers that disrupted the fuel pipeline, or the hacker that broke into the system for a water treatment plant and increased the amount of a dangerous chemical used to treat water to a highly toxic level just before an engineer was able to abort the command. That is what hackers can do now but if they had access to it all? We’d very likely be utterly doomed.
The amazon profit of 11.2 billion without paying taxes is an apples and oranges comparison. 11.2 billion in GAAP net income can be equivalent to 0 in IRS income depending on the size of amazon’s deferred tax assets at that time. And they had some hefty loss carryforwards from losing money early on contributing to large DTAs. You cannot compare two separate bases of accounting like you did for this reason. You can, however, trust that the IRS always takes what’s theirs as the tax code is a robust system that has undergone decades of tweaks to snuff out any strange technicalities us accountants might try to find and exploit. Do they still exist? Probably. But audited corporations (ie Amazon) would have to disclose in their financial statements if they took any tax position that could be seen as “aggressive” by the IRS. The IRS will get their 21% of corporate net income (IRS basis) (35% rate back in 2018) no matter what. You two put together some great content that is typically well thought out and researched, but next time you want to talk taxes, please ask a CPA friend first to make sure you aren’t making such drastic oversimplifications. Cheers!
Most of this isn’t “lies” but rather just political wrangling I have done actual work and research into this topic and I am happy you at least mention nuclear energy as a requirement to become carbon free, but even with that you are ignoring the significant infastructure needed in storage. A smart grid and an IOT solution is absolutley essential, but it is not enough to provide a stable grid. We will actually need to create new technologies and investment is still needed in the start to engineering of these technologies. Batteries and inverter systems are not enough.
I liked the part where they talked about how wind farms use non-recyclable blades made out of expensive materials like carbon fiber and fiberglass bonded together that just pile up in landfills and how solar panels contain lead and cadmium which is sealed into the glass and is destructive to acquire. Oh and the part about how lithium ion batteries contain lithium and cobalt that are mined with slave labor. I’m not saying that renewables are bad, but vague, incomplete, and misleading articles like this are why trust is declining. Not because big oil said it’s too expensive or anything like that. We need a mix of renewable and nuclear energy for the future generations to survive, but just putting solar panels everywhere and building millions of electric cars is not just a magic bullet that fixes everything.
Just Germany opened so many Coal-fired power station after switching to renawble and closing it’s nuclear power plants. Us french are starting to become very skeptical about wind turbines (farmers are tired of having wind turbines in the countryside), solar pannels (because it takes a lot of space) and EVs (because it needs a lot of electricity)
I like your content and some of the things discussed here are accurate. Most of it, however, is a spin on facts and just one side of the equation. This is what happens when people seek out facts to support their opinions rather than considering every angle. Maybe check the pretentious delivery at the door too.
Transportation: Train -> Cars -> Electric Cars Airplane: Am I a joke to you? Seriously though, it is Train -> Car -> Plane Wind and solar simply do not have and will never have the energy density to be a viable replacement for oil. Nuclear is the only way to go. The biggest lie is this article. For example renewable is not cheaper than fossil. That is the biggest lie of all. “Fossil fuel is only viable because it is subsidized by the government”. This is, essentially, projection. What’s being called “subsidized” is actually tax breaks and the like. You see, when you have a company wanting to set up shop, they can choose between country A, B, or C. Therefore, A, B, and C all must compete with each other. A tax break is an incentive offered to the company. AOC learned this lesson the hard way in NY with Amazon. Amazon was willing to set up shop in NY provided they got a tax break. Now, a tax break doesn’t mean they don’t pay taxes, it means they just pay less tax. AOC refused and now NY gets full taxation on exactly $0. Way to go AOC. This is different than an actual subsidy that the renewable industry gets in grants and other sources. This is where you have a competing industry that is unable to actually compete and so it gets subsidized so that it doesn’t have to turn as much of an actual profit to remain competitive. We have a few examples of such up here in Canada, Bombardier being a big one who not only gets subsidized by the government to be able to manufacture aircraft for the world market, but has even received bailouts to prevent it from going bankrupt. Next lie, fossil fuels have reached peak efficiency. Which is a rather odd statement but wrong regardless of which way it’s taken. Do you mean extraction? They are still coming out with more efficient way to extract oil and even when they reached the limit, there is still a way to get the hydrogen at least sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/company-harvest-green-hydrogen-underground-oil-fires. Do you mean the production of electricity from fossil fuels? Wrong there, they range from coal plant which has 37% to natural gas at 50%. Solar is still around 22% when in unimpeded, direct, sunlight. This article is just the typical “Renewable Good, Fossil Fuels Bad” propaganda.
Honestly, the whole approach we have is a bit wrong. Currently, the best alternative to fossil fuels (in terms of the ratio of construction and maintenance costs to electricity bill profits) are nuclear power plants, which, in addition to uranium, can also use thorium. Photovoltaics and windmills are very inefficient, or instead of them you can use mirror power plants (idk what they are called) that focus the sun’s rays on a single point, generating huge temperatures, although these will only work in places where there is a lot of sunlight, so northern Europe or Canada are rather not so good location for them. Alternatively, we have to wait until we finally create a working fusion reactor.
This story shows a lack of true knowledge as to the practicalities of every day application. In short it is a rosey dream of what he wants rather than what is truly possible or practical. To begin with he minimized what are in reality major negative effects on the environment of these renewable energies. Wind farms disrupt and destroys wildlife on a massive scale. The energy benefits of wind farms is not enough to justify the cost in manufacture, installation, constant maintenance, and the eventual removal and or replacement of wind turbine which are providing to ware out unbelievably fast. Not to mention the cost to recycle and or dispose of the waist materials. Not everything can be recycled.
Why isn’t the fact mentioned that since germany invested more in solar and wind they’re emissions have gone up, because they shut down a lot of nuclear power to be “green” but instead they need to burn a lot more coal since wind and sun can’t provide a stable grid. You can’t have a large stable grid solely based on wind and sun without some sort of battery, but at that size we do not have
I’m glad you include nuclear in the renewable energy section. im tired of seeing people hating on nuclear power because of previous disasters or nuclear waste which is so extremely insignificant compared to other pollutions. we need a way to produce mass amounts of energy while we as a planet develop the technology to become fully renewable.
7:48 Except no one actually paid those rates. The 90% rate was like a unicorn. Everyone talks about it being there but no one has ever seen it. In other words that was the tax rate but the effective tax rate, what was actually paid was more liken the 21% rate. Keep in mind that that the 90% was for those making 200K. There weren’t that many making that much, around 10K who were in the whole country and even they didn’t all pay that rate as I mentioned. Some because they didn’t make enough over 200K to bring in that much or some underreported or took advantage of tax deductions or loopholes. Also Corporations operate under a different set of guidelines for taxation. They are a different entity than regular people. Many don’t bring in a profit so they don’t have anything to pay. They are allowed to bring those expenses the following year if they do make a profit which reduces their tax rate. They can also deduct investments over several years. This is because corporations engage in much more capital intensive investment than you or I do and this allows for their income to reflect accurately what their profits actually represent. This allows for companies to invest as much AC possible back into the corporation like no wages and benefits.
Why so you ignore hydroelectric energy tho ? I know it cant be everywhere but we quite litteraly power our entire province and some parts of the US because of our NATIONALIZED electricity here in Quebec. The environmental impacts seem to only be short term and just create a new biome over a long term
I agree with basically everything in the article but, specifically about the solar energy, do you guys have more info about how well can the panels be recycled? Because as far as I can tell, there aren’t many viable ways to refurbish and reuse them and we still throw them away after 15 or 20 years. I love you guys and your website so much!! It’s great to see other lgbt people gaining space in science ❤
1) Remember the real Golden Rule – He who has the Gold make the Rules. 2) Unfortunately, in the US, the most effective way to get votes is through advertising – not policies; so, politicians need money to get elected – lots of it, And again, the Golden Rule. 3) The US tax system is based on adjusted income and for those with high incomes, the best way for them to increase their Net Income is reducing their taxes. Taxing their last dollar (taxing income above a given level) adds to that incentive. A 70% tax on the rich would mean that they could earn 70% profit on every dollar they can take off their adjusted income. The best profit they could make elsewhere else is 10-20%. Taxing the Rich is easy to sell but near to impossible to actually achieve. Selling false perceptions that you aren’t accountable for accomplishing – looks like you have what it takes to run for office.
I think it’s odd that people think of nuclear vs. solar/wind as a dichotomy when it’s really not. When one actually looks back at what various leaders said about nuclear power as a technology, their goals were stated as being to conserve fossil fuels. Not only that but the nations that use a lot of nuclear power such as France or Japan have such a small amount of fossil fuels, so maybe that’s part of why they use so much nuclear for their power? And a final food for thought, can anyone just try to visualize how much the Navies that use nuclear powered submarines actually conserve natural gas or diesel fuel that would be used if they weren’t nuclear powered? Even Truman and Eisenhower stated on the making of the first nuclear powered submarine, the U.S.S. Nautilus, they made such a vessel to make it not depend on coal or oil. Basically nuclear and solar/wind serve a similar purpose in being an alternative or a reduction to fossil fuels.
I’d believe you more if I had less “These guys are doing it!” and more “This is why… and often why not”. Energy grids are different. Some countries are set up for renewable only, some not. And it differs place by place in every country. No one is arguing that renewables are bad. It’s the constancy – and therefore storage – issues that are the problem. Many cities in the world CAN NOT be sustained by renewables only. They would require massive farms of renewables with massive battery farms that are simply unfeasable. Same goes with a lot of industry plants. The fact that there’s usually little to no room for compromise is the problem. You gotta go 100% renewable or nothing! It’s not like some form of balance might work.
I think electric cars are less important than people tend to make out. We need to get away from the idea that everyone needs a car entirely, making cities more walkable and bikable is more important, reduce the distance people need to travel for amenities, other options for personal electric vehicles make more sense too, a light foldable scooter uses far less energy than a car and you can carry it with you, it’s physical footprint and energy footprint are both reduced, then there’s the humble bus and train, if we focus on making public transport work and making light personal vehicles the norm, we’d do far more than if we get everyone in an electric car.
Glossing over energy storage, glossing over the fact that modern nuclear power plants (that are not built because of scaremongering) are more eco-friendly and safe then i.e. wind power, glossing over the fact that LiIon batteries require resources that are not physically available for everyone, glossing over the fact that “Carbon tax” de facto targets the poor and the lower middle class and middle class in poorer countries (i.e. I can’t afford an electric car because it is literally twice as expensive as my house while I could by a decent 15yo ICE car for a two month salary – and that includes all necessary refurbishing after purchase).
I live in eu, ans switching to renewables ment one thing for us: electricity costs way more, you pay extra for solar panels, people get crazy from windmill shadows.. and we have a grid shutdown plan for winter because now with the shutdown of the nuclear plants… You keep including nuclear.. not a single EU country is still pro nuclear..
Guys… when you truly look at numbers, get interested about the prices, the feasibility, the functioning of renewable energies, I’m sorry to tell you that renewables (especially solar and wind) are just super bad. We’re living in a time of crisis with climat change, we need to change FAST, renewables would take waaayyyy to long to come in place before climate change becomes too big of a deal. Germany is such a bad/good example, they closed their nuclear power plants so fast, that they now need to build new coal power plants.. So, right now, the only true energy that could “save” us, is nuclear energy.
Honestly, the biggest lie about renewable energy (especially Solar) is that yes you’re offsetting your power production during the day, but you’re likely relying on dirty diesel generators or other fossil fuel driven power stations during the evening unless you have batteries on site at home to use the energy you made during the day. The whole “tax the rich more” always comes up as if equality means the same as equity. Amazon for example found their loophole, if you change the “rules” of tax they’ll just find another loophole and you’ll end up with local millionaires leaving to somewhere they won’t get taxed as hard. Likely taking their business and therefore required jobs with them. The world got small and people can get to the other side of it within 12 hours for pennies. Taxing the super rich fixes nothing, they’ll just move – it’s not like they don’t have the money to move everything they own overnight.
It seems like you’re conflating the ideas of “taxing the rich,” with “make the rich pay their taxes.” I’m all for having everyone pay their fair share, but just increasing the amount that they are supposed to pay will just get us back where we started. edit: also I think that the government gives way to much of our taxes in the form of subsidies
I love the pushing of solar and wind as it is only two systems that require massive storage to be viable where Thorium MSR power is pushed into the shadows. another problem not mentioned is solar flares and solar mess ejection. These two events can and have shut down electrical grids and equipment for long periods of time (weeks Months)
: The primary cost of renewables is the storage of that energy and the renewable infrastructure AND the land (the land is not free) and you need about 600 times more land area for renewables verses nuclear or fossil fuel plants. Nuclear and what about hydrogen? We could store the excess energy in hydrogen. Ferenc did you not know efficiency and availability are in contention with each other.
well this certainly did NOT age well. WIND, solar, and nuclear was not enough to power Germany econonmy or households….they still pay Putin via Russian Ruble while protesting against the war with Ukraine. Yes, we need to adapt/research improve new energy sources…but they are still MANY barriers to go and we STILL need OIL/natural GAS.
“Forget about wind and hydro, rely on nuclear and naturals, and save money with solar and geo” This is saying, wind and hydro are too destructive, nuclear and natural gas together is more efficient and far better for the environment than what we have now, and in certain places and conditions it might be smart to use solar and geothermal, such as Iceland with Geothermal, and Sunny places like Mojave Desert with Solar
This article started off so right and ended up becoming so wrong. Renewable energy is getting more and more efficient and that is the reason why the government doesn’t need to get involved. Everyone wants cheaper energy. Higher efficiency = cheaper energy = death of inefficient energy from fossil fuels. This is basic economics. Your solution to tax the rich is so stupid because the money is raises is basically nothing. Not to mention that the rich don’t usually get rich through income, but through capital gains when their company that they own stock in rises in value.
We know that to make solar and wind really a replacement for our current energy needs just here the US means building big solar and wind installations. Has anyone done the math and calculated about how many acres, square miles etc. would be required to do that? The US has one resource that is I think our greatest treasure and that’s the national parks and our open spaces along with the abundance of biodiversity there. To install a solar array requires clearing the land, making roads and installing power lines (preferably underground where they are less susceptible to damage) to connect them to the grid. As well as in some cases relocating sensitive species. In one case I saw a TED talk a Biologist have where he and a team had to relocate a bunch of endangered Land Tortoises to make way for a new solar installation. A lot of them died. I’m sure that somebody’s done the math on that. Anyone have an answer?
I agree to disagree, you are talking about projections, i agree that the primary goal should to pass to renewable energy 100%, but reality begs to differ. From what i know for Europe, they are going through a tough winter and having trouble acquiring enough fuel gas at the moment and they are currently reopening coal plants and nuclear plants, please check Europe energy crisis.
Die kWh von meiner 29 Jahre alten PV-Anlage kostet mich an meiner Steckdose ca. 1 Cent/kWh und das ohne Stromspeicher. + Beim E-Auto + PV-Stromüberschuss sind das ca. 0,20 €/100km an Energiekosten. (20kWh/100km) + 1 kWh Solarstrom bei der Wärmepumpe bringt ca. 3 kWh Wärme, Energiekosten ca. 0,004 €/kWh (Wärme) + Die installierte Leistung der Erneuerbaren hat in Deutschland im Jahr 2023 um über +17GW zulegen.
Wind and solar are still not cheaper than “fossil fuels.” Strange lies on this website about the efficiency of Oil production too. Also how would the oil companies be lying if this shift only occurred in 2018. Other than Nuclear power, the technology is not ready and likely wont be for another 30 to 60 years. Glad you brought up that the grid is powered on coal and oil.
I have an electric car in northern Ontario. Due to many of these sciences not being developed or tested in extremely cold weather, my car is less efficient and I also cannot travel far distances due to the lack of infrastructure available. I also wish there was more commercial travel options like rail available and they were more environmentally friendly. It makes me sad that a lot of the initiatives put forward to the public all focus on individualistic advancements. Is it really so bad to travel with other people?
A point that I would’ve liked to hear your thoughts on is the carbon footprint of building solar panels, wind turbines and batteries, in particular rare earth elements that are extracted mostly in China and developing countries. Are we just relocating the C footprint yes or no? How do we stop depending on these countries (that have much lower environmental standards) and create our own green REE extraction?
I understand energy companies fighting to coal n oil. But as a child I realized those were finite. In WW2 battles were fought to secure oil n coal. So as a government wouldn’t you want to preserve your assets instead of burning them? Save them to produce food in future instead of visiting Grandma? Who should be reachable via public transportation.
8:14 the reason why Amazon paid no Federal income tax is because the government asked them to spend money on certain things like green technology, employee empowerment programs, and other such things. It seems really counter productive to get what you paid for then complain about not getting more. Almost like saying, “We want you to be green but not too green to avoid at least paying us a little”.
We should develop as many means of harvesting energy as possible because I don’t know about you but I don’t want to have to worry or think about where my energy will come from and will be it enough/will I lose my power … anything that weatherproofs as simply and concretely as possible … also… is simple
How many gallons of diesel fuel does it take to put in the roads, dig bases, haul cement, haul the materials to the actual site to construct wind turbines? If we used that diesel fuel to power a generator, how much electricity could it produce? Thats not adding in all the man energy, lives lost, killing or disturbance of wildlife. None of that even takes into account the energy used to build the different parts of the turbines, how much electricity is used by the factory where the parts are manufactured, there are multiple companies that manufacture turbines, and probably multiple factories (one for making the blades, one for the trunk, and another for the generator) per company. If the math is done correctly, all the fuel used just to build them, let alone manufacturing the parts, is a much higher cost of energy used, than they could ever have in output. Id love to see some actual numbers. That doesnt even account for all the equipment used in construction, most of the dozers, backhoes, semis, used are specifically dedicated to building wind farms, so that also added energy used to build that equipment, people tend to look past the overhead cost, if they were really as great as what people believe, the government wouldnt have to subsidize the building pf them. Second, What happens to the car sized batteries in electric vehicles when they go bad? Are they recycled? What about all the energy used in manufacturing the solar panels, putting them up, running the grid, what happens to those when they go bad, are they recycled?
I thought this was going to be scientifically based. There is so much handwaving and misinformation, especially about taxes. Most economists would find his statements about taxes highly misleading at best. He didn’t say that we got the more tax revenue in the 50s, he simply said the rate used to be higher, without any evidence that the higher rate had the effect he is saying will happen. This is misinformation.
After reading all these comments these are only my thoughts: As for nuclear fission, we aren’t quite there yet and it still needs plenty of research. Nuclear waste is still not being completely recycled and there is a percentage that has to be adequately disposed of. We still have an intrastructure of paved highways and roads that need constant maintenance. That maintenance is done by huge machines that still depend upon fuel. Same with farmers who use huge fuel-powered machines to plant and harvest their fields. You cannot produce and process foods for America using horses and plows on small acres. Electric cars are still prohibitively expensive and I am sure fossil fuels go into their manufacture. The batteries aren’t there yet either. As proven with Hurricane Ian they are subject to corrosion, and then create a fire hazard by exploding. To replace that battery costs thousands of dollars not to mention the whole car after it blows up. Insurance companies don’t provide replacements by catching money from the sky. The majority of Americans just don’t have that kind of money if they also need a roof over their heads, food, and medicine, utilities, bills, and to pay for it all with various insurances. A change is clearly needed to combat the current inflation problem which has significantly increased the price of everything. All those batteries produce waste. Potentially thousands of spent batteries… what is done with them? Wind turbines may produce low frequency sounds which are very harmful to humans, and are amplified by the walls, ceilings, and floors inside the average home.
Now tell people how expensive anger gun is on Germany . Then tell them about rolling outages in Europe and US . Then tell them about the toxic waste and child labor to produce batteries. Then tell them if the top 5 largest battery companies did nothing but produce storage batteries for the grid/home it would take them 10 years to build enough capacity to store the energy. Then tell them about how after 20 years we will be dumping 50x more waste into landfills than ever before . The answer is nuclear !
I have study economics for over a decade now and if there is one thing I am confident in it is that Taxing the rich is a bad idea. Usually they choose to pay lawyers to avoid it and it then falls on middle class(this is a major oversimplification but I don’t feel like there is a need to get into the details). Usually when someone says they are going to tax the rich it is just a buzz word to get votes. instead I think it would be more efficient to Make legislation that encourages companies to invest in renewable energy. This would actually cause for a quicker turn over than trying to tax them, because there won’t be as much of a backlash and the money would actually go where we want it.
This was very cute, but totally missed the fact the energy storage a the HUGE problem. Making lithium batteries is extremely energy intensive and very hard on the environment. If you pushed nuclear, at least you would have a workable solution. Pushing wind and solar just emphasizes fairy tale thinking in total disregard to anything even remotely feasible.
Advanced geothermal systems is the answer, such as the Eavor Loop. Cost can be reduced by making use of sCO2 and it’s far smaller turbomachinery, like at STEP DEMO, as well as electrocrushing drilling methods, such as the RePED 250. Retains all the advantages of conventional geothermal and improves on others.
This just has to be the most misleading article I have ever watched on the subject of renewable energy. Most of the ‘facts’ stated are incorrect and in the three years since it was made it has become even more clear that renewables simply do not work. Oh yes, you can dress them up as cleverly as you like and make it SEEM as though they’re viable but they aren’t. The long and short of it is this: coal, gas and oil are the only viable options right now. To replace them we must look to the only alternative that really works – nuclear. The rest is just fake science and lies.
7:15 There are so many misconceptions about what it means to “tax the rich”. 1. Even if you could apply a 70% tax and bring in an extra $170 billion per year that would only account for 3% of the $4.9 trillion total tax revenue the government already collects each year. 2. One of the reasons most of the billionaires live in the United States is because of the low tax rate. If they raised the tax rate all the billionaires would leave. 3. Most billionaires got that way by providing valueable goods and services to the world and they reinvested their profits back into their companies. This means their wealth is not in cash. It’s tied up in the share price of their stock and properties. To pay the tax they’d literally have to sell their company. 4. The way the rich avoid paying tax is by not taking income in the first place. No income, means no tax. How do they live? They borrow against their assets and live off the loan. 5. Assuming you could somehow make them pay 70% of their profits in tax, that money is now gone with no productive return and can’t be used to reinvest into the business. Employees would lose jobs. Their stock valuations would crash. They would have to raise their prices. All these things would have a flow on effect in the global economy. 6. Even if you combine ALL of the worlds billionaires total net worth it still only adds up to about $12.7 trillion. The US government debt is currently $31 trillion. That’s more than twice number in total debt. Don’t get me wrong, the system is rigged and unfair, but it’s not as simple as you think.
I’m not rich but I am an engineer, I’ve worked on power grid infrastructure have to say its in bad shape with current demand yes the smart grid will help shift loads (they are already doing it on a limited bases) but in the end the power needs to move and the current system cant carry much more so have to say your out to lunch. It will take a major influx of cash just to meet the current estimated requirements, let alone the government mandating EVs. As to the rich if it were me Id move my money out of the country at the first indication such a rule may pass. That said politicians may give you lip service at the end of the day more of them run on donations of the rich 1% than anybody else do you really think they would pass a law to lose that again dont think so. As to jobs yes green energy may add many more lower paying jobs oil and gas pays much better (been in both) and its almost impossible to achieve the green agenda with out oil and gas as they make plastics and the lubrication that make EVs and the fiberglass resin that makes the wind turbine blades and almost every thing you own and use today from clothing to house paint
Unfortunately, nowadays, with our technology and the development of green energy, this is utopia. It is expensive, unprofitable and often even more harmful than the use of coal-fired power plants (just keep in mind that parts for wind turbines are made of fibreglass, which is not recyclable). In that case nuclear power might be the only option, but with the condition of closing the nuclear cycle. It is a pity that pop culture portrays nuclear power plants as plants that can explode at any moment, spreading myths about nuclear disasters (Chernobyl, Fukushima, Kyshtym, Three Miles Island and so on) and about nuclear reactor design (and there are many reactor plant designs).
“I want to change the world in a expensive way but I dont want to pay for it I want rich people (richer than me) to pay for everything, borderline communist style, because that always works. And rich people never move capital to avoid taxes.” I have studied environmental science for 3 years so Im not in any way against renewable energy but you cant help but to see the naivety of what is being proposed here. You want to convince everyone to get on bord but also smuggle in far left economic redistribution. These ideas just makes the transition to renewable energy harder.
omg they made alot of money on what people wanted and where the demand was? shocker. if the demand is “clean” the suppliers will be there like every other product on earth. common denominator – government doesn’t have to create the supply or demand on any product but yet businesses illegal or not take care of it. shocking.
Unfortunately it is of my knowledge that the integration of renewables is more complex than only their acquisition and fabrication. The energy system requires complex control systems to match supply and demand at every instant in time and renewables introduce uncertainty coming from weather variables – which we all know it is really difficult to predict. Apart of the e-waste that renewables will have in the long run
Problem with green energy is how to store the energy for use when there are no sun, no wind, or no moving water.. we have no good way to store energy in this amount.. of cause nuclear could help in this area, but then again not, because unless i am wrong, nuclear is not a simple machine you turn on and off once a day.. it has to keep running, no ? and if you need nuclear power in an amount that can handle the grid without the green energy like from sun/wind/water, in some periodes, you could just as well use only nuclear for everything, and dont waste time and energy on sun/wind/water.. It has been a few years since i did research into green energy, but as far as i can see with a little search on google, we still have no way to store the green energy for when there are no sun/wind/water movement.. One way to store green energy is to pump water into a higher area, and when you need the energy back, you let the water run down again into a water turbine generator.. but this has a huge amount of energy lost this way, i think over 50% .. green energy isnt simple at all, and has nothing to do with how much anyone make on it.. money isnt the problem here, maybe A problem, but a very small problem compared to the problem with storing the energy for when its needed.. please correct me if i am wrong.. i like to learn 🙂
Ah yes, the tax the rich point. Amazon employ over 1.5 million people worldwide (and this doesn’t include contractors and other related job creations). Those people pay taxes. Look at it this way, one company has facilitated millions of people to be employed, earn money to live and raise their families. This, in turn, generates money for food and drink businesses that facilitate these workers, transportation, and tradesmen (to name a few). The ripple effect is huge and it is generated by one company. If a country were to penalise them for literally creating an industry, then they will move their operations to a country that will reward them for stimulating such an economic growth. Even still, you can tax them 100% and they will still legally find a way to not pay tax. Just create more expenses. If a company make a million profit (which will then be subject to tax), they can just give everyone a pay rise, this will then be an additional cost and that same company has made nothing (at least on paper). When it comes to earnings, these people build their wealth on ASSETS not a salary. This is why the top 60 US companies didn’t pay anything in FEDERAL tax! Also, I’m not against the idea of renewable energy, but surely you don’t put the cart before the horse? You are saying we should phase out oil-fuelled transportation while not have the sufficient infrastructure to support it. Surely, that technology must be developed beforehand? Where do we store the energy? Thats seems to be the biggest issue we have.
pronounced Wind-calms can take up to ~3Weeks here in middle europe and in european winters you get barly anything out of solar in December+January, so it doesn’t matter how ‘cheap’ the ‘volatiles’ get, as long as you can’t sore them for weeks at a time, not with one or two kwh for each KWp of Solar but with above 100kwh of energy storage for each kW powergeneration of Wind+solar. But this is exact the reason why gasprom and all the other opportunists in the gas-industry actually love the ‘alternative energys'(but spent millions on anti nuclear lobbying): Its the ‘bridge gas’ the ‘backup to the ‘volatiles’ called a ‘bridge’ even there is now near-term solution to this problem in sight, so its a ‘Bridge to nowear’ and so a guaranteed income for Gasprom and co for many decades to come.
I think the car’s era is fading, the new way to get around is the electric bicycle. Although many are still hoping they will be able to afford an electric car, we’ll soon have to face the reality that there isn’t enough batteries around for everyone to get 100kWh, and a 1kWh ebike has enough range (50+ km) for city use.
Most capatalist countries only tax profit that is “withdrawn” from the company, but it the company reinvest creating more jobs that is not seen as profit. This is how most companies are missing paying extreme tax but it benefits the economical growth. A win win. I would imagine the US works the same, in my country our tough labour laws makes employing workers very expensive so the growth in unemployment is declining so much so that the youth has a 50-60% unemployment rate. Point is it’s a difficult balancing act and to tax the rich would not be a vaible solution, especially since timing is very important. If you tax them right after the declared their profits they would have little left to reinvest and growth would be slow, if you tax them after the reinvest, you can be sure everything would be used to invest in some way or form. The only sure way would be to lower company tax and put individual tax on a sliding scale. The more you ern the higher your tax.
The Chernobyl incident was catastrophic in shaping public opinion on nuclear power. It was after all the disaster films ( The Day after) etc.. Nuclear power should be considered until other power sources are perhaps discovered. I’m no expert (clearly) but I’d take a punt on Europe considering this especially after the heat waves..
I think what I’m starting to realise and consider is: are the environmental impacts of a green economy (one based on renewable energy, electric vehicles, more sustainable and efficient… everything) less or greater than the environmental impacts of remaining with fossil fuels and the outdated unsustainable systems we currently have? Because, as much as I agree that not all renewables are efficient or practical enough and there are a lot of geographical factors to consider, and as damaging as lithium batteries and e-waste are to the environment and poor workers, and the other caveats to renewables that are often overlooked or ignored because of environmental moralism (not sure if that’s a real term or I just made it up), I still think it’s NOTHING compared to continuing to extract, use and burn fossil fuels until all reserves run out and emit exponential GHG emissions into the atmosphere that are poisoning the air, land and oceans and warming up the planet. And I’m sure that in years to come, with more efficient technology, better environmental laws and regulations and workers’ rights to reduce the impact on ecosystems, and transitioning to renewables in a sustainable way that doesn’t cripple the economy, it is achievable. But a lot of it is now empty platitudes and greenwashing lies without an actual plan on how to make it a reality.
Honestly when Republicans started saying Russia was the victim I stopped listening to them altogether😂 clean energy has been shown to help because nuclear and coal are so damaging. The main problem behind clean energy is power lines and transporting that energy from wind at night and solar in the day which currently how stands isn’t how it works but is feasible
Look, I’m an expert . At best most countries can reach 20-30 % energy by Solar and 2-10% by wind . Luckily there’s more clean energy like Geothermal and Hydroelectric that can reach 5-20% and the most powerful of all Nuclear that can provide 30-60% energy for a country ! There’s also Biomass that at best can do 2-3% of energy .