It Ain't So Easy Being a Green
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- Support Out of Frame on Patreon: / outofframeshow
Watch our newest video, "How Can You POSSIBLY Not Be Red-Pilled By Now??": • How Can You POSSIBLY N...
Check out our podcast, Out of Frame: Behind the Scenes: / @outofframebts
Bob finds out that if he wants to significantly reduce his carbon-footprint, he can! He just has to give up a bunch of other things, first.
We all want a healthy environment and a beautiful planet to live on, but different people have different ideas about how to get there and not everyone is always so realistic about what their plans will cost.
Fortunately, we can have an awesome environment and a great standard of living at the same time!
Check out some of the links below to find out how.
______________________________
CREDITS:
Written by Seamus Coughlin & Jennifer Maffessanti
Animated by Seamus Coughlin
Produced by Sean W. Malone
______________________________
LINKS:
fee.org/articl...
fee.org/articl...
fee.org/articl...
fee.org/articl...
fee.org/articl...
fee.org/articl...
At our current technology limit, nuclear is by far the most efficient and ironically ecological option.
It's also a great use for disarmed warheads, since all that enriched nuclear material has to go somewhere, may as well be used for power.
Anti Theist aye m8 but wot bout the commies innit?
Doesn't even seem ironic when you have a higher education.
@Rechordian Going further, according to some 'go green' individuals (Cortez, Waters) Nuclear powerplants are pumping out huge amounts of CO2 from their smoke stacks...
Seriously...AOC tweeted about how the smoke coming out of Cooling Towers is from diesel generators that power the plants...
@Rechordian No, I get that. I'm just saying that when you are aware of the scale of those incidents and the circumstances surrounding them, the irony fades away.
Nuclear makes the most sense
It's better than fossil and less land intensive than green
It's statistically the safest and most effective power source in the world. Including meltdowns, it's killed less people than wind.
I know that people are really paranoid about Nuclear, but we've come so far in making it so much safer than it used to be. We even have ways now to turn the waste into fuel. It's really the best option. I just wish people wouldn't give me funny looks when I say that.
@@kraftyevan this is true however its gonna be hard to convince people because a meltdown is more sudden and gets more attention than say the hundreds of birds that get cooked alive above some solar farms
hopefully we'll crack nuclear fusion soon, that'd basically be the perfect energy source
Orzo Pasta
We really aren’t close.
Wait, they are aware they are made of paper? Now that's a twist. Can't wait to see the fuller immersion of this universe.
They know that you wach them
Damn, I didn't get the joke until I red your comment.
It's called Flatland and its denizens are called Flatlanders. BTW, they have to regurgitate their food since a digestive track would split a Flatlander in half.
@@melainewhite6409 I seem to recall reading an excerpt from a book by that title back in geometry class, but I had forgotten about it until now. Thanks.
I want Bob to make a video by himself explaining something haha
You may get more of your wish than you realize, fairly soon...
Yay! A shoutout from my favourite channel :D
That would be hilarious, I can totally imagine him looking over his shoulder for Seamus, and then speculating as to what Seamus would likely tell him, and thus delivering the message himself accidentally.
@@FEEonline Was that a Forshadow of the Future, Bob to the Future?
@@FEEonline Also many of the other arguments that follow simply highlight the need for technological innovation. Like biofuels, ideally made by gmo algaes so they dont take up space. That would be necessary for airplanes which unlike cars dont really have an electric option. But yeah... conserving the fucking GLOBAL climate is a priority for any decent human being. I gave your channel a chance after finding your The Boys video, but suspicions confirmed: another bullshit libertarian channel arguing to just give up on everything (better quality of life (forgiving debt), saving the environment etc.) because "freedom". Well, FEE allow me to give you a news flash: freedom comes with RESPONSIBILITIES!
I’m all for researching more powerful and more efficient means of energy. The trouble comes when people try to legislate, fear monger, and bully other people who simply raise plausible questions.
This is what happened with nuclear and why it takes 60 years for a plant to turn a profit.
Lithium ion batteries used in electric cars are also hard to recycle but Lead acid batteries used in traditional cars are very easy to recycle.
Isn't it more like lead-acid were here longer, so we have developed techniques and entire facilities that allow for easy and cost-efficient recycling of lead-acid batteries, while the Lithium ones are newer and the amount in circulation is still not great enough to entice people to invest in large scale facilities and research and development of methods for handling them? I know that we had Lithium in our phones and laptops for some time, but this is nowhere near an electric car in matters of scale.
Dont they have like a really short life span compared to lithium ion?
Lithium ion have longer lifespan and better discharge and charge life. Sure it's hard to recycle but it is more reliable if we are going to keep trying to make fully electric cars.
We could also go towards graphene batteries which aren't nearly as bad to manufacturer, stores far more energy than lithium, lasts far longer & it recyclable. It's expensive right now but it's still in the R&D stage. Graphene batteries are the future of batteries.
You can recycle like 90% of a lithium ion battery. It may be difficult but when industry develops around it then it gets cheaper.
1:45 I think comparing the crude oil to the battery pack is not fair. Crude oil is not a finished product and requires further processing to extract the fuel we can use.
Afterlifesinner not to mention oil also needs to extracted from the earth and is one time use vs once the batteries made and energy source is backed by renewable it can be reused until the battery dies but guess what the battery can infect be recycled; we had the technology as far back as Edison and today we have massive facilities dedicated. I would love to see that replenishing oil do that XD
@@wastelesslearning1245 batteries can't really be recycled, at best they're only recycled to be repurposed for a different kind of use until they're no longer useable.
@@AlineaEuros Have you seen battery recycling plants? Have you seen Thomass Edison's recyclable battery? Heck their are youtube vids showing how to recyle and fix bats.
@@wastelesslearning1245 you should see how they recycle batteries from a hybrid and electric cars, infact they both dont just use one single large battery, they use a bunch of smaller batteries that form a battery back, they can be recycled to an extent like i said before, eventually their last form of recycling is when they get basically destroyed and its reusable components like copper are re-used for different applications while the rest is disposed of.
Alinea Euros cool facts bro can a gallon of oil be recycled at all after being combusted? Is the energy behind that oil sustainable? Biogas yes maybe except the methane in some kinds but petroleum? batteries need to be made sure but oil needs to be found, dug, and refined and after all that for a one time burst. 75% of the worlds surface is ocean and open ocean where nobody lives. With nuclear even less space. Renewables can placed there and on other places that no one cares about like their roofs, windows (yes there are transparent solar panel windows), sewage facilities and deserts. The only main thing about most renewables is their lack of momentum so if their is a malfunction with standard steam powered coal plants for example, the turbines momentum will keep the generator going for a little bit while the engineers attempt repairs. But hydroelectric and nuclear and solar steam can do that as well. This video is nihilistic BS
Anyone who claims to want to move to green energy, but doesn't want to talk about the possibility of nuclear should probably not be calling themselves environmentalists.
As a clean energy researcher, I'm 100% in favor of this video. People need to be realistic about what renewables can do in order to develop the technology and make it better
Tell that to the millions, if not billions, of green energy terrorists who act as if not outright banning all fossil fuels will make us all die tomorow.
0:50
And nuclear plants (they are extremly safe and usefull)
Make Romania great again they are not safe and they’re just a pain to supervise. We need much more investment in fusion because it can be done, would have no nuclear waste and takes up less space than any renewable source would require to produce a fraction of energy from
@@310-q1c nuclear plants are much safer in comparison to fossil fuel. There were only two nuclear reactor accidents that I know of and those accidents happened because of poor human choiche of where to build the reactor (Fukushima) or what materials to use [Vladimir Ilici Ulianov Lenin (also known as Chernobyl)] and nuclear power plants are more reliable. Wind mills aren't so reliable because the wind doesn't always blow. Solar energy isn't so reliable because the sun doesn't always shine.
Make Romania great again false you are not counting all of the nuclear waste that can leak into water supplies and the ocean and the potential to weaponise the plants by foreign powers
@@310-q1c Just because the nuclear waste can leak into water, that doesn't mean it is going to. We humans can create special places, where we can store this waste.
Edit: also, nuclear waste is recycable. Here is a video about how it's done: *Argonne explains nuclear recycling in four minutes*
Make Romania great again why isn’t it already done then? It’s easier in the short run to store it but even then it’s very high maintenance and not at all practical for the future. Fusion is the future
As an old hippie I support nuclear energy, and all the comments about it.
It's a sign that your head is screwed on stright. :)
You need to feel good about yourself.
I loved the ending with Bob saying the epic "actually".
Could you please make a part two of this topic with Bob making his own thoughts and debating nuclear and hydrogen with Seamus? I would "actually" like to know the problems and advantages of these compared to full renewable energy sources economy.
Great work and love this series!
its a spectrum, and im no centrist. we need to do something or else we all go to the dentist
I feel like I’m missing something. Where does the dentist come into play?
@@meglukes joke about death, teeth are used to identify the dead?
This sounds like one of those half-baked rhymes from The Princess Bride.
@@davidpement Anybody want a peanut?
I agree whole-heartedly, f---- the dentist. One time his assistant tore the tissue of gum that connects between my top row teeth and my top lip. If we don't go to nuclear power that same s---- is gonna happen to everyone
The United States could go completely Amish overnight and it wouldn't mean a thing if China, India, and all of Africa don't get their emissions under control.
"The USA isn't doing enough to curb carbon emissions!"
- Multiple countries with populations higher than that of the US, driving dirtier cars than the US, with enough corruption to make the US look saintly.
@@Tank50us not to mention that 90% of the trash found in the worldss oceans comes from 10 different Rivers, eight of which are in Africa and the remaining two are in Asia. The other 10% of the trash comes from every other continent on the planet.
@@carsonrush3352 source? I'm not saying u r wrong, im just curious to know more about
Yeah, America reducing its carbon footprint is important, but that doesn’t mean that China’s reducing their footprint anytime soon. Europe for that matter too, because Germany wants more coal instead of nuclear because of retarded environmentalists
@@aaronlandry3934 I have a cousin from Germany, they actually ended up increasing their carbon footprint. Primarily because of how wasteful the solar batteries are, the amount of fossil fuels the helicopter pilots have to use to de-ice the wind turbines in the winter, and the massive influx of migrants who waste energy like it's going out of style. They're like kids with new toys, it's never been available to them.
Reverse psychology:
The new means to subtly undermine failed policies.
Keep up the great work, Seamus!
Just because there are some problems with going 100% green doesn't mean there aren't things that we can't do now. It's not an all or nothing game. We as humanity MUST think about our impact on the world because the rivers and air and land are in our backyards and do have an effect on our lives. We have modern examples, such as Flint, MI which show us exactly what happens if we don't care about our impact. We poisoned ourselves in that one! I live in Utah and the air quality is horrid and takes real time off of people's lives, but no one wants to try to do something about it because it's easier to put a bandaid on it and push off real solutions, like improving the infrastructure for public transit, so people actually want to use it.
Well I agree with you with most points I'm not going to get into I disagree with but I'll just say that I'm more of a find a good balance between Nature and Science when it comes to stuff how we should live our lives
You have to separate the environmental issues from the climate. Farming, fishing, mining, dumping and many other non energy factors affect the environmental far more than oil use does. The reason why they focus on energy is not because it helps the environment, but because it brings humanity down. It may sound crazy, but the question you should ask them is not what you support, but what are you against? They want humans brought down a few pegs.
Major companies out produce us in pollutants and waste. It’s almost useless for us to go green if there isn’t government regulations also stopping major corporations. This is why libertarianism is as ridiculous as anarcho communism. It cannot sustain itself. Then again this channel is funded by oil barons(Koch) so why would they provide a decent answer to the climate crisis?
Alan Gonzalez As much of a libertarian as I am, I agree with you. The fines don’t do justice, and it’s cheaper to pay fines then properly dispose stuff. Holding them accountable will make things a lot cleaner, and not some dirt, trash infested shithole.
@@Alan-wj5zc Climate crisis?
I normally like FEE's videos, but I'm not sure what the message of this one should be. Fighting climate change is inconventient, so instead of taking responsibility for the problem we should just ignore it? Instead of only complaining about leftist activists, I think it makes way more sense to present libertarian and free market solution for the problem.
The message is "it's a good cause, I guess. But we don't have the technology to make it work yet. Bummer"
Still, saying there's a problem but just ignoring it because it's inconvenient is... morally questionable.
Also, they didn't say environment is a genuine concern. Seam just was proud Bob was comitted to something.
Maybe we don't have any...yet.This video only shows how those other "solutions" aren't even green or feasible so instead of wasting energy time and money fighting for those fake solutions we could start searching for realistic ones...like NUCLEAR
rocadezona85
Yes because listing usual conventional boomer counters to wind or solar without actual academic or fact-based analysis is totally epic.
Check out the links.
@@FEEonline thanks...exactly my thoughts
me: ~reads title~
also me: "dang, john and hank have it hard, huh?"
Yes, its hard. But is the message that then we should let go? Its just some optional personal preference?
If going green is hard, and it is, the problem is not with going green, but with our civilization practices. We need to change, this is not optional. Not just "oh let's go wind/solar", but we need to re-evaluate the basics of our life-styles; consumption, resources, livelihoods, cities. EVERYTHING. The limits of the earth will always had the last word.
And how are you going to enforce this lifestyle change if at all? People aren't just gonna change by themselves.
Ok. You first.
Simply banning things for the environment is like increasing life years by sacrificing quality of life.
I work in aged care, it's the pervasive attitude that dictates how most workers do their job. Many of the elderly are denied alcohol, whether to bath or not, time they want to go to bed, etc. based on increasing lifespan leading many elderly to have depression and act out as they have little meaning in life from feeling unable to choose.
The comparison of the battery with the oil tank was brilliant! That's a great point I didn't know about.
I wonder if it factored in how easy this energy is to extract. I mean, for heating you probably will get almost all energy out of oil by burning it, but when it comes to powering an engine then the efficiency difference means you need a few more barrels to get the same result.
@@TheBlobik Out of that same barrel of crude oil, you also get what you need for other chemicals & plastics. So while you would need more for gasoline per se, you still get more "stuff" out of one barrel than you would relaying on batteries.
*edit
My husband does engineering services for petrochem refineries. I'll ask him what all this entails. I know he knows, but my understanding it is a different story lol
Thoise batteries are also worse for the environment, as they cant be recycled at all, and some diver in California just found several shipping containers full of electric car batteries (as in from Tesla and other brands) dumped out in the water, just barely into international waters.
@@dreamwolf7302 And the cost of replacing those batteries is over $2K vs your average vehicle replacement battery at around $300.
@@sarasunshinemt4444 my cousin bought a Tesla, and she was so uppity about it.
Until she found out she had drive 23 miles, one way, to charge it, and until the first time something electrical went wrong with it.
Hint: even a small electrical fault in an electric car, puts the whole damn thing out of commission because it costs as much as a new gas powered car to fix. (seriously, bought my Ford Fiesta, which gets 44MPG right now, for 6k, 'year end leftover' sale. My cousin's car needed the fuse box rewired, and it cost 7500 for all the work because the fucked up fuse box burned out a bunch of other shit)
You forgot about nuclear power
Many green organizations (*cough* Greenpeace) don't like nuclear. Or hydro. Or natural gas. All of which are better than oil and coal.
Greens don't like solutions
@@TechnoMinarchist they like complaining about the system
@@owlblocksdavid4955 Yes groups like Greenpeace do advocate for the use of other types of green energy other then nuclear, solar and wind because they know that those aren't enough to sustain larg nation's like the US.
You should actually check them out in their site's.
@@8is No they don't, they complain (it shouldn't even be called complaining because they are pointing out something serious) about the fact that most countries don't want to go all the way through with this and that people like the billionaires Koch brother(No not the ones that were from Florida and had a TV shows in the early 2000s)who are known for perpatuating climate denier's.
Personally I'm the kind of person who thinks that while we have good nuclear power now we should look deeper into better forms of nuclear energy beds both more safe to use and more effective as well as other forms of resources we could create better more renewable
Nuclear is darn safe. Two incident with 2000 death in over 50 years with hundreds of powerplant all over the world ? Seem pretty safe for me
@@arthemis1039 what part of look deeper into better forms of nuclear energy didn't you read in my post also both those incidence could have been avoided had they heeded the warnings ahead of time
@@robfrank3423 Chernobyl was human error so no matter how it could never be predicted, Fucushima was a old reactor just geting hit by a wave far before the rods could stop the reaction
@@pedrootavioazevedodaroz1736 that only proves my point, people said Chernobyl would break but the government didn't heed the warnings and they because they wanted to keep up with America, people that would actually warned about the Fukushima earthquake years in advance but no one paid any attention take it from someone who lives right next to a power plant you can go your entire life near one of these things and be completely safe all you need to do is make sure that more fail-safes are added and that worst case scenario the plant will be ready to shut down and send the hazardous material underground at a second's notice
@@robfrank3423 you just described gen3 uranium power plants, theres also thorium reactors which are just not able to melt dawn, since thorium does not react by itself
I was arguing the Amazon fires and how the media portrayal is bullshit JUST as I got this.
Love you guys!
So, what's bullshit? Do you think stuff ain't really shitty here in Brazil?
@@FelipeKana1, here in America, the media is making it seem like the fires down there are a bigger deal than they are. For example, I figured out that you guys have those fires every single year and that the fire levels have been below average this year. NASA talked about it and your local environmental agency (can't remember the name) released synonymous data concerning it.
Not to mention that many of the photos our media uses are over 20 years old.
It's still a tragedy nonetheless, but everybody here in America is blowing it way out of proportion
Just posting a reply to get notifications for this thread.....
Something I have been wondering about the amazon is why the people who want to save it so bad don't just buy the land/rights to the land. I'm sure that farmers, logging companies, and the like have to buy the land or logging rights or something to get access to the land for their purposes, so why doesn't everyone who goes on and on about saving the rain forest just buy the land and tell the would-be farmers and loggers to get off their land?
@@EvilerOMEGA because the Brazilian government wouldn't sell the land to foreigners? And I don't think that most Brazilians can buy thousands of km2 of rain forest.
Wind power has almost no impact on the farmland, barely impacting the growth rate of the crops grown next to it.
Solar varies by where it's placed, but works best in the desert where there aren't farms anyway. The US has more than enough desert in the Southwest for this, at least if we want to make the western-half carbon-free.
Though if we really wanted to go green, we'd use uranium/thorium. There's an unlimited supply of uranium that can be extracted from ocean-water for about $750 a kilo, which would have virtually no impact on the electric cost considering how much energy is in 1 kilo of uranium. Nuclear is actually the safest, because it produces per person injured.
Because pointing out somebody’s hypocrisy solves climate change.
No, but it might have them look for actual solutions.
How about Liquid fluoride thorium reactors?!
We should see about deploying more basic forms of MSR because those.
Could work but we do know the safe bet would work.
So basically going fully green, while nice, is not worth the effort.
Yes and no. There are some things that *right now* we lack the required tech to really make the most use out of. Case in point: Electric Jets.
Electrically Powered Jet Aircraft (EPJAs from now on), do have a future. The problem, is that compared to current jets (say a 737, because over 10,000 have been built), they are nowhere near as efficient in terms of 'fuel' in to power out. A battery weighs what it does regardless of whether it's fully charged, or depleted, so it goes from a varying weight (like fuel and bags), to a consistent one, which means that if you want more power and range, you need more batteries, which then require more powerful engines to get off the ground, which means bigger batteries and so on... Compare that to Jet-A powered aircraft, the aircraft becomes more and more efficient the longer it's in the air as the fuel is burned off and the aircraft gets lighter since aircraft are only given enough fuel for the trip plus some extras incase of issues (like a diversion or hold).
As things stand right now, electric cars may be better for us in the long-run, and more and more people are buying them as their peers talk about how much they're saving each year on gas, so the American market's already doing what the EU is forcing people to do, and what 'the squad' is pushing for with their Green New Deal (which also proposes to ban any non EPJA from the skies). The catch of course, is that the infrastructure needs to be in place for us to get the most use out of them. But that's actually pretty easy to do, it'll just take a while.
Being green is very easy. I already poured a gallon of green paint over myself!
"FRONT END OR BACK END" holy shit thats an good argument
Another important thing to note: In regards to electric vehicles, the infrastructure (especially in the American Southwest) is not entirely built up to the point where it can handle charging and recharging massive amounts of electric vehicles each and every day (like most gas stations can). Also, not everyone has the current financial capability to simply forego their current, gas-powered vehicle for a new, still expensive electric one. Finally, most of the information provided in the GND is geared towards non-climate related, heavily Pro-Socialist and Pro-Vegetarian/Pro-Veganism agendas. Forcing one's own opinions, beliefs, and lifestyle choices upon others (including AOC forcing hers upon everyone else) is the textbook definition of oppression!
Yes. Also, why don't those enviromentalists suggest more viable ways to think cities in order to people to have easier mobility on foot?
Edit: Grammar.
@@DusKnight7th Have you ever BEEN to the American Southwest? Everything is very spread out...
@@L337M4573RK I haven't. Hope it is better in that regard.
@@DusKnight7th This is why you don't understand the problem. Everything is so spread out that it's not physically possible to do what you have suggested. Go do some ACTUAL research for a change!
@@L337M4573RK Did not need to be rude, everyone is mistaken every now and then. However, I do admit I, as of writing this comment, did not research profusely this topic around the world.
Edit: Grammar.
1. There is countless amount of space inside the ocean where there are already wind farms that are sustainable in water. Its ALL comes down to UNCLOS or United nations convention on the law of the sea, and getting more countries (including the U.S.) to sign it. 2. On the idea of electric vehicles producing Co2 emissions first realize that's because they are charged by electricity that comes from power plants, this is easily solved by powering them with idk solar power, wind power, etc. Its not the the cars fault that society is so dependent on natural gases, once we slowly wean ourselves off of electricity like that, it would legitimately be better in comparison. 3. While yes when creating electric vehicles it takes up to 2 times as much Co2 emissions (comparing creating alone) but this different from normal vehicles. Normal vehicles will continue to emit Co2 for its ENTIRE lifespan. Electric vehicles have a one time Co2 release during the creating of the car. In the long term we would see less Co2 emissions. 4. This whole rant about not being able to eat meat is first solved by #1 because we aren't taking up actual land for wind farms. Next please realize the massive red herring here. He is basically saying wind farms are going to take your meat away, it's literally a massive pussy tactic trying to scare you because he doesn't have any legitimate arguements here. 5. I'm not saying that it's the end all be all, but don't count it out it's definitely good start. Also just dont get lost in the conservatives disingenuous talking points.
I don't like how this video completely ignored nuclear energy
Not eating meat is actually a very easy, healthy, legal, safe, ecologically sound, and, most importantly, NECESSARY option for everyone.
I just love how the video misleads about not enough room for solar and wind farms , even though their is lots of room. Of all the corn that is grown 40% of it is used to make ethanol (in 2013) so reducing the corn grown would free up lots of room. There is also alot of sunlight and open desert in southern America which could be used as space for solar panels and would generate lots of electricity. Maybe do some research next time before you release anything.
That doesn't even matter because we can just use Nuclear Power
@@Foodude Nuclear power is not only very expensive to create, it can also be dangerous (Chernobyl) and creates nuclear waste that can last 25,000 years
@@thomasmcginty2588 Sorry but not only is Chernobyl a dishonest example it is also an outlier. Additionally Nuclear Power has become much safer than ever before, with current designs being incapable of melting down while also producing much less waste.
@@Foodude But what about the Fukushima incident in Japan where a tsunami hit a nuclear power plant and spread radiation to the surrounding ocean and land.
The Astronaut Once again that is another extraordinary case dude. To use such an incident to fear monger people into not supporting nuclear power is actively harmful to progress
the "context" from Bigtube is gold
Here’s a wired food for thought,
“What happens if we start becoming spacefaring colonists and we start drilling on asteroids for minerals? And then we somehow colonize Mars?
What a _great idea,_ too bad people don't consider that option anymore.
Freethinkers Politics/discussion Yeah, The would rather treat humans like sheep for the slaughter
Well im sure we can blend agriculture and wind farms.
those things keep the crows away better than scarecrows anyway.
Yeah there's definitely a place for both solar and wind in the future economy.
Or you go over to insect farming which requires less land and in the newly opened land you place solar wind geothermal of something else honestly those other options are too often ignored
@@abdallahshakeel7036 Many countries already do this. For example, when I went to Mexico, Chapulines (crunch crickets) were a favorite snack, sold in bulk on many street corners.
@@luddity really? Nice but i still think a lot more countries should
That is a very sneaky way of saying "we support big corporations that control the oil industry". Electric cars and bigger batteries are not a bad future investment. The more developed and better it becomes, the more we will understand and we can find cheaper ways to produce them.
As well as Nuclear being a good substitute for energy.
Medicine got me fucked up, i had 4 straight hours of Lectures on Immunology and Antibodies.
Today i saw the thumbnail and thought "why is the earth surrounded by antibodies?"
Just do the Minecraft solution.
Disable fire spreading and enable cheats to stop disasters and change weather... Smart thinking my guy
Afk rayworks farms
Carbon being released at the front end is the best way to handle it. Closest to the work, and only as needed with minimal surplus production.
Nuclear would be great :v
We are gona ignore the fact that solar and wind will take less space than oil pumps
Didn’t you hear- - -Physics is just a social construct.
As I write this, we've already seen the realization of nuclear fusion, renewable energy has proven to be more cost effective in producing the same amount of energy as nuclear fission, and solid-state batteries--which require no special cooling--plus high-speed charging that can bring a 75-kWh battery pack from 20% to 80% charged has been realized. But still... I await the day that stored electricity--and the performance had by it--can fully meet or exceed the the "fuel can" metric, and our petroleum-based needs become only non-fuel based.🙂
Fusion reactors are the way
Common I don't want to wait another 30 years.
The gorrilla in the wheat field is my favorite thing I saw today.
It's possible to make it happen, but we won't get there without oil. Anyone can see that.
AOC is tweeting about a documentary she's seen promoting dilithium crystals as a power source. She also says she wants to lead the way in promoting wide-spread transporter use for transportation because of its zero carbon footprint.
Got two words for you... "Thorium reactors"
Nuclear power is the easy mode but people just like a challenge and want to play hard mode instead.
What about the *SMURFS!*
I would really like to see more info about land requirements for solar and wind. Awhile ago I saw a video going over Europe specifically because the population density there is so much higher than the US. They found that in the UK somewhere around 20% of the land area would have to be dedicated to solar in order to fulfill the energy requirements.
Sheamus would later get a cease and desist order from Kermit the Frog for using the phrase It's Not Easy Being Green without his permission
Lane Arnold
9 days ago
Joint custody is a joke. Had 50/50 with my ex, and she still constantly moved him around to keep him from me. Even went so far as to legally change his name without my permission, and the courts happily signed off on it. Paid all my child support and the courts would do nothing to help enforce the custody/visitation order. He's an adult now and located him a couple years ago. Doesn't want anything to do with me and implied that I abandoned him. Family courts are in the top 10 most corrupt institutions.
1.9K
52
The Dadvocate
we can actually do agriculture much cheaper by placing solar and wind energy to power vertical farms. plants don't use all the energy that hits them so we can instead capture that energy with solar, and use only the most efficient wavelengths to grow our grains, we can also use that energy to grow grass in large skyscrapers for cows, capturing and burning their methane productions.
And wouldn't it be possible to use solar panels on the roof of every house in a city?
This sources of energy take space, we just have to use all of our spaces more efficiently.
@@Nparalelo that functions as an offset, rather than a replacement method.
There's skyward direct sunlight, geography, climate, angle, and other factors to consider even optimal use before even getting into total production potential per sq' and how that aligns in a more urban environment. Nevermind how energy intensive each tall building is compared to say a traditional farmstead.
Don't misunderstand of course, do what makes sense. Just don't expect too much in regard to the output. Hell, it would be a start if even simple car parking areas utilized similar applications, but we're not even there yet in terms of utilization largely due to the up front costs involved.
@@Nparalelo yes, and it is in fact more efficient to place solar panels in the fields where we currently grow our crops and instead grow them in vertical farms lit with the wavelengths of light the plants most efficiently absorb.
Question: How to go green?
Answer: Nuclear
Wind turbines don't take up a lot of space at the ground level. There are plenty of photos of farmland interspersed with windmills.
And plenty of roofs and awnings and such that can be Solarized without taking up any additional room.
Both of those arguments are very weak.
That bit about the oil versus battery is also weak, as that very expensive battery can be charged and discharged thousands of times, for much less than $60 a pop.
The cost of mining rare earth metals is a legitimate concern, but you didn't include any statistics or comparisons.
In short, this video needed a lot more research.
@Jonathan Williams oil is renewable, so long as you don't use to much. As long as the rate of oil being naturally produced in the earth is equal to or exceeding the use of oil, it's renewable by definition. Now carbon is a separate concern, but if you're only concerned about renewability it's definitely possible. Otherwise we'd eventually run out, and would have to switch over.
Yes betteries can be recharged but they do have a finite cycle life and although you could charge them with a source like solar or wind the majority of power comes from coal, oil, and natural gas so your just adding a step really and expanding the footprint on a simple task.
I think if we as consumers want to reduce pollution and carbon emissions i think youre better off buying a old used v8 truck then you would be a brand new tesla. Same can be said about a lot of other consumer items.
@Jonathan Williams The point is we still have roofs. That's extra space.
~And especially useful in sunnier environments like deserts, equatorial nations and such. Cities in those locations have huge electric potential even if they need some backup~
@@owlblocksdavid4955 I forgot exactly how oil is naturally produced, could you give me a refresher?
Alexandre de Souza team I can it takes millions and millions of years pre-seeded by rare cases of floral overgrowth like when algae went out of control milions of years ago and when nothing could break down trees so they just piled up till fungus came along millions of years ago. So after some plant apocalypse and millions of years later boom oil like 1/5 the oil will be back just in time for us not to use it cause we would
A) fully renewable
B) extinct by them
C) off world cause earth is now a hell scape
It makes sense if you think about it
It's important for everyone.
But what's your solution to climate change, you can't just 'debunk' things then not offer an alternative
Earth goes through natural heating and cooling spells, we are technically still in an ice age because we have ice still. Some studies have debunked global warming, this being said carbon emissions is still harming the earth in many other ways, so more biocoal, nuclear and other renewable sources would be helpful
@Santiago Trestini actually, its been shown its pretty evenly split. However, all on one side were silenced and the agenda was pushed. Even many of the support of global warming studies were inconclusive in the end. This being said, again it is best we do better things for the planet.
Tony Heller is doing a good job with videos on UA-cam describing the problems, yea fraud, in the media and 'science' of global warming. There are others reporting on this too of course.
@@ivanedits9295 let me just ask this. Usually people push agendas for power. What could possibly be the reason for pushing that it's humans fault the earth is warming why would anyone push that agenda?
If we are talking effective energy generation that isn't inefficient like wind and solar then what about hydroelectric or geothermal? While nuclear is by far most efficient it is significantly harder to convince others of.
@TheBrodsterBoy Fair point. I just don't understand the adherence to only wind and solar.
We have to go nuclear if we want to save the environment.
Safest, most efficient, most environmentally friendly energy generation method as of now - and this fact remains true even when we include Chernobyl and Fukushima into the statistic.
It generates radioactive wastes, yes, but unlike CO2 those wastes can be contained, and even better reused into the reactor.
So. Fucking. True.
There is also hydraulic power but it need to flood big amount of primary forest land and it can reveal dangerous amount of toxic meterial back like mercury
Misinformation campaigns like this are very troubling. I work in the energy sector and this "physical limit" as the video puts it is not what limits renewables adoption, it's regulation. Stop spreading lies.
Deregulate nuclear just as well; would bring costs and construction time down, not to mention risk to billions in investment. The few nuclear projects still going on are still going with light water reactor tech and nuclear recycling is pretty well banned in the US.
I’m loving the fourth-wall break, Seamus.
alot of nevada is pretty empty, Nuclear is an option to get R&D on,
Came from Nevada, can confirm that there are vast swaths of barren wasteland that nobody would miss in the slightest. One stretch of sand is just as unwantable as another stretch of sand.
@@whatisupmyfellowamericans8808 Germany has 5x more solar power than the United States, but the United States has lots of sunny, useless deserts. The U.S. are idiots.
@@Dracopol I'm not sure what you're actually saying here. Are you saying that Germany is stupid for building up so much solar infrastructure or are you saying that the US is for not having done so? The wording is a bit unclear. Sorry.
@@whatisupmyfellowamericans8808 I'm saying the U.S. are idiots for not achieving what a cloudy, cold country is doing. I will re-edit and clarify. It's an unusual turn of grammar if you are an American and expect only nice things to be said about your country, looks ungrammatical, even. Germany is between 47.25° and 55° North latitude to boot.
@@Dracopol Comparing the two as though they are equivalent is asinine. And even then, what does it matter that Germany has 5 times as much solar infrastructure if they still need fossil fuels to support their economy? Don't even _pretend_ like their renewable energy holds up their economy.
Also, pull your head out of your ass. I'm not here to brawl it out with a European who's ego is so big that they think they can generalize me based on a skewed interpretation of my country. If you _need_ to inject an irrational amount of soapbox pandering into everything you do, then do it on one of the countless hundreds of videos where it would actually be appropriate. Not here though. It's entirely unrelated and unnecessary. Notice that I was trying to be _polite_ to you before, because that's what _reasonable_ people do. They don't act like massive narcissistic ass-bags for no reason.
I usually love these videos, but thats a slippery slope if I've ever seen one.
I actually wouldn’t be against tall ships, maybe I’m biased cause I’m interested in sail training. Of course nuclear power would also be good. Can’t wait for bobs counter video, I like how you guys mixed up this video, bob was actually Waiting for someone to correct him!
Just casually ignores:
- Nuclear
- Hydroelectric
- Geothermal
- Tidal
Energy sources.
Also probably made by someone who doesn't realise the vast technological improvements in solar energy over the last 20 years. Given the "take up a lot of space" comment.
it still take up a lot of space, and killing birds, and the cost is so damn high
@@rico0920 the cost is high?
Solar is the cheapest form of energy and getting cheaper. Coal is going away because it's more expensive than solar.
@@dsssingh coal power station is more used than wind turbine, and some of the bird deaths from wind turbines are hidden, remove the wind turbines and you could plant more trees and more bird could survive, and also remove some of the effect of coal generators, one of the ways to analyze bird deaths from coal generators is to see how many died from mining, but to make wind turbines you also need to mine
@@erikpoephoofd solar energy storage is expensive, in case you wanted 100% renewable energy, but otherwise you can expect that in winter times coal generators will start to be used more
@@rico0920 Coal plants require many personell to be present and requires much maintenance. Solar is very low maintenaince, requires no personnel to be present and is increasingly cheap to manufacture. The excess energy produced in summer can be used to generate hydrogen. This hydrogen can be stored in salt domes underground which can later be converted to electricity using a fuel cell.
This is probably the way the market is going since solar is getting so cheap. It has some downsides including efficiency problems, but we need to get rid of the excess solar power anyways, so it's still profitable either way.
The obstacle with more solar isn't a lack of land, it's the price of solar panels. If solar was cheap, everyone would have solar on their roof.
1:16 *actually...*
Seamus, Just because it's a food truck doesn't mean it has to be powered by fossil fuels. Just because Bob is trying to sell tacos doesn't mean it he has to put the meat of an animal in it. Just because it's a sailboat doesn't mean it would necessarily be very slow. Just because solar panels take up a lot of space doesn't mean they have to be built on wildlife reserves and startup farms. Wake up Seamus, not even *you* understand the true power of capitalism. (Not to mention that you are constantly wrong-shaming Bob.)
Thank you for this. This video is so uninformed and spreading misinformation it hurts
It's implying that electric ships are impossible for some reason
If only I could remember all of that the next time a green meanie gits in my face. Maranatha!
Ah yes, comparing crude oil to a completed battery. A completely fair comparison there. Especially as you can only use the oil once.
How much do you get from the Heartland Institute to publish this nonsense?
OH THAT BOB!
Yeah. Solar and wind take so much space. And need to be on slanted surfaces. Oh the humanity. How will we ever find space like that? What would we even call such things? Roofs?
In terms of power storage we could use pumped storage hydro electricity. This would be extremely regional but has a pretty good efficacy of 75% of the energy being usable. Plus having mountain top lake might be a good tourist spot.
Brilliant!
Solar and wind farms are a waste of time and space. Their intermittency makes them only good for auxiliary sources of power, unless you're ok with lithium mines every where (Google that). Instead of using up valuable land for a power source that only works sometimes, put wind turbines and/or solar panels on roofs attached to homes or businesses so that they can make power when the sun shines/wind blows. And, when they're not making power, they're not doing any real harm by being up there waiting for the next gust of wind or sunny day.
For our energy grid, the best option (long term) is nuclear. Nuclear plants generally have incredibly good safety records and a few pounds of uranium can power a small city for decades. It's not perfect. The potential for nuclear disasters is always present and once the fuel has been used up, it has to be stored somewhere for thousands of years. However, the point is that it doesn't take much to get a lot back from it and it's technology that we've had for decades. Plus, it's virtually carbon free.
The wild life preserves is actually a substantial consideration. North Carolina has the greatest potential wind power output on the east coast. However, this is mostly thanks to the Inner Waters and Outer Banks, which are mostly wildlife preserves and national parks.
I`VE been in this choir he`s been `preching5` to so long, I`m ready to do my SOLO ... LOL
Nuclear is just difficult because of misconceptions and the cost of building the plants. If we could create micro converters for cars that could nullify the manoxide from exhaust without driving the car price upward that would at least be something
Thorium time?
I got this as an ad. Safe to say I was fairly disappointed there are still people who refuse to think about this at all. Sure going green is hard, but that doesn't mean we can't go partly green, or even keep it in our minds to try and improve our impact on the planet. You can't just ignore it because "going green is too hard". For those that will argue, no I did not finish the video and yes I respect your opinion. My opinion is that this topic is not black and white, and it doesn't have to be Nuclear vs Green.
That wasn't their argument.
The argument was that switching strictly to green isn't realistic.
ua-cam.com/video/nyRu0qxj81o/v-deo.html
to be honest .. i can't imagine electrical power storage is THAT expensive .. but sure .. it's several orders of magnitude higher ..
My dad got really into solar energy, for emergency preparedness and such. He researched a ton, and in the end, that was the conclusion he came to. Storage is just too expensive, and power generation is not strong enough to meet humanity's needs.
Majority of 'green energy' is biomass, which tends to be burning trees
I'm so glad you guys hired Sheamus, he's awesome at what he does!!
It does not matter if it's hard though. We still need to do it if we do;t want to find ourselves in the actual apocalypse. The energy one seems tricky and I honestly don't have the knowledge required to argue for anything here, but eating less meat, at the very least, if not going vegan or vegetarian, is something we CAN do, and again, SHOULD do if we want this planet to have a future. We can also recycle more and try to consume less and use things more fully before replacing them.
And it's also worth mentioning that at certain points these problems probably will be solved, as we find better ways to use and convert energy, learn to create good synthetic meat, and so on.
It's probably worth having our quality of life somewhat lowered in order to prevent from being thrown to hell in a few decades.
Things like solar power and vegan food are affectations of the rich in developed nations. Most people on the planet don’t have the luxury of buying the fancy grains to provide enough protein and other foods for the needed fats. As for energy, nuclear has all the benefits of renewables, and better at them, without the down sides.
Not to mention how many birds, bats and insects those confounded wind and solar contraptions kill on a weekly basis
You kissed with this one, we wouldn't have to store energy like we do fossil fuels, we produce the amount we use +/- like 2% maximum. We don't need that many batteries to let the engineers do their jobs
The answer clearly thorium power plants, all the environmentally friendly benefits of a nuclear plant, with none of the dangerous downsides, and it even generates more power.
Oh Bob
I noticed that coastal wind farms were skipped over, which is the majority of wind farms in the UK. I also don't know why Colbalt was mentioned, when we are more focused on Lithium batteries today. This is an ok video, but there is a lot more to this and some of his arguments are off kilter.
I FInally understand this video Seamus ruined the back end of it instead of the front end :P
What if we run out of wind?
Do people not realize the house roof is the optiumum place to put this?
To be fair - a good chunk of the space could be where they now grow the corn for ethanol (which is dumb).
Is that the land where the sun always shines and the wind always blows?
... here in good ol Nebraska
Even if electric cars require those materials, electric cars heavily cut down the emissions you would get from a petrol car and saves you money in the long run.
Also air batterys could be close to the energy density of oil if used efficiently.
This is admittedly one of those really complicated issues. Oil and natural gas are certainly going to remain part of the plan for a while. In the mean time we should continue to innovate and diversify our sources of energy. Nuclear is a solid option. I’m perfectly fine with oil and natural gas as long as it’s done safely and companies clean up their mess when they are done with a site.