The Big Misconception About Clean Energy

If you're seeing this video as "private" or if something happens and it stops playing, please try refreshing! There seems to be a publishing problem this morning, and I'm trying to fix it. Sorry, friends

New subscriber here. I really like the way you explain things by breaking them down into simple concepts the average person can relate to. On the topic of energy, have you considered looking into Thorium Salt Reactors as a potential future clean energy source?

As long as the demand comes from the free market I'm all for it, but we won't be dictated to and controlled by bureaucrats like John Kerry from his private jet. He needs to get a job.

I agree 100%, that's why I work in nuclear. There is always cost and it's not just about money. We need not just clean energy but efficient energy. It doesn't matter how clean it is if it's inefficient. That's a big problem we face now.

Hi, there is a clean energy called magnetic generators. Uses no fuel, just magnetism. And it's being made here in the united states let's get it no smog

I posit you this:
What if Fossil Fuels could be used/burned with Zero emissions????

The tech currently exists to "burn" fossil fuels and have NO emissions, yes, it is true.

The problem is that these processes add cost. So the question is are we willing to pay for clean fossil fuels?????

I would love to see you explore this possibility....

Keep up the great work ...


Coop
Author

This will blow your mind. Energy where? energy has a direction. When I drive a car that is powered by gasoline I carry the energy in the car. The source of the energy and the car move together. I can also easily place storage tanks or carry storage tanks anywhere I want. If I have a windmill or a solar panel, I'm either moving away from the energy or towards it. Then what are you doing with the energy. are you just sitting in one place shooting energy up your butt?

Y'all need to realize that all of the terrible climate predictions have been wrong since the early 1970's.

you really don't know how the Indian map look like.
you offended various Indian people like me. i have liked your every video except this.

View energy sources like your 401K. Diversify. They all have a downside, and for my money CO2 is far less a concern than toxic chemicals. Climate change has been happening since the Earth formed. The human impact is relatively very small. Balancing our energy portfolio and looking for energy conserving tech will solve the problem.

What is the shelf life of a solar panel, wind turbine? Replacement cost? Disposal cost? On the scale the world needs?

Industrial meat production won't change so what difference will being educated make?

Improving life for human being is something positive, but it doesn't mean over consumption and increasing the consumption of everything to the possible max. The west and china are consuming a lot. Besides the clean energy we also need a sustainable way of recycle and reuse. rare earth elements and other thing like aluminium and such are limited and not worth exploiting the nature much further.

No one is forcing the developing world to change immediately. It is the developed world that has to transition as soon as possible. Whatever you say, the slower we transition, things will go out of control soon. The carrot and stick approach keeps reminding us that we have to make the change. Otherwise we would be still using fossil fuels 80% in the USA.

Cleo, your voice is going to inspire so many people to move us forward. I'm glad you're here. We need you!

We have here in Iceland a lot of clean energy. We not only produce our electricity from 99% green energy, a few islands still use diesel generators, but 85% of all our energy use comes from green energy. About 65% of all our energy comes from geothermal and about 20% from hydro power, the rest, 15%, are fossil fuels. With electricity it is about 24% geothermal and 75% hydro. The big exception from green energy use is transport, where fossil fuel is still dominant. Those 15% fossil fuel will be coming down in the next years. We have the second highest percentage of EV in the fleet in the world, and 55% of new cars in 2023 and 50% in 2022 were either BEV, or hybrids. Ferries are going hybrid, busses are going EV. There is little we can do about airplanes today. We still have more geothermal and hydro resources, and are starting to look at wind. We have a few wind turbines for testing purposes and both single turbines and two wind parks are planed.They will complement hydro power, that because of the low temperatures, gets less water in the winter. On the other hand, we have a lot of wind in the winter.
We have the highest electrical power consumption per person, 51,300 kWh per person per year, 80% of the electricity going to industry.
#2 is Norway with 24,200 kWh
#3 Bahrain with 21,200 kWh
We are going green with lots of energy use.

This "carrot" approach to the energy production pollution issue ignores completely the problem of overpopulation. The planet has a limited amount of land for humans, farms, and wildlife. The problem is overpopulation. Period.

The energy in this video is so clean (to my mind :-) !

Here's the problem we need energy to support our population. Now it's a good thing to develop means of using less energy for the same effect but it's a better solution to create better means of generating energy in forms that we can readily use without major technical changes. For instance, we could use more nuclear energy and then develop fusion power to generate the energy we need. We need more energy even if we figure out how to heat our homes with less energy or move about the country consuming less energy.

Yes! Using energy to improve life is A GOOD THING. Except for that CO2 issue ...
Eli Dourado has written that heat extracted from the top 200 miles of the Earth's crust potentially has 23,000 times as much total energy as all of the fossil fuels ever used or known to exist in the ground. It wouldn't be cheap or fast to develop, but it says that a hundred years from now we could we in a much better place using much MORE energy than we do today.
Some of Matt's "contrarian" suggestions deserve a much wider audience (e.g. "One Billion Americans"). Thank for promoting this one!

IMO it's never been about "Energy is bad!" - it's always been about "Dirty energy is bad!".

Looking at things from as many viewpoints as possible is something most of us should do more of.
Thank you so much for this. 👍

This comment is VERY "tongue in cheek". PLEASE don't take it seriously, or assume it is what I really believe.
The thinning ozone layer allows more of the sun's energy to reach the earth's surface... this will make solar power more efficient.
There is a large increase in wind velocity in many parts of the world... wind farms will work much better.
There is a massive increase in rainfall in a large number of areas... hydro power will benefit from this larger resource.
There is a staggering amount of additional energy available in storm-cells... research in power from wave activity will yield rewarding results.
SOOO... with all these benefits, global warming MUST be good - RIGHT?
To see how good it is, carry on doing what you have been doing, then
PUT YOUR HEAD BETWEEN YOUR KNEES, AND KISS YOUR BUTT GOODBYE!

You may want to do a study on the creation of clean energy and what it costs to create windmill farms in solar panels and all the clean energy you're talking about. We need to rethink nuclear energy.

The new 2 layer solar panels can give us all the energy we want.

“Pollution is nothing but resources we're not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value.”
— Buckminster Fuller
I might have some interesting perspectives on the matter, so have your team hit me up if you are interested in the perspective of the use of algal biofuel.

Greta T. is a parody of eco-activist. Just a marionette, paid actor. 🤮

There is a solution bypassed by most commentators, spreading compost on rangeland + mob grazing. The ROI is 2 years because of doubling of meat production and less need for feed lots. If done for the whole US while adding no till farming it would offset all US CO² emissions. The Marin Carbon Project demonstrated that done on only half f California's rangeland it would offset all residential and commercial emissions except transportation. The net cost is zero and the benefits last decades.

The trick is boot strapping clean energy. Initially, a lot of fossil fuel gets burned to produce panels, wind turbines, etc. But I agree in the long term we need to make the shift. So conservation and switching seems best right now.

Cambrian Explosion (6,000ppm) CO2. Healthiest earth diversity (2,500ppm) CO2 & 12 degrees hotter. Increasing CO2 will heal the planet, by greening the earth. We avg 430ppm this year. So we need to increase CO2 by 500% to improve & green earth, to save it. There is heavy metals & radioactive isotopes in coal that are very toxic. But CO2 from methane burning is beneficial. Earth's crust is 8% Calcium carbonate. Acid rain washes Calcium BiCarbonate (9pH) to the ocean (8.1pH). Ocean warming & violent storms removes Carbonic Acid from the ocean increasing its pH. Ocean acidification can't happen! Reefs are destroyed by toxic chemicals & fertilizer, not carbonic acid. microbes can create Ammonium Carbonate from fertilizer & carbonic acid, but the problem is fertilizer, not CO2 or Carbonic acid. New cleaner forms of Nuclear until Fusion is possible is an option. CO2 recycling burning algae oil are viable options. Wind & Solar are not viable options & destabilize the grid.

Scientists have been spewing incorrect computer model generated predictions since the 70s.

CFS hopes for fusion power on the grid by the early 2030s, and it looks as if they'll do it. :-)

Honestly, I'd love to hear people stop talking about how fossil fuel is bad because of climate. It's just a really bad argument. Why? Simple. Tomorrow's climate concerns just don't hold a candle to the practical considerations of life today.

Instead we should start saying that fossil fuels are bad (in comparison to clean energy sources) because they're expensive and hard to produce, which means there's a lot less of it to go around and do cool stuff with that will make all our lives better. Today and tomorrow.

The goal is for cheap energy, period. As long as oil and gas are more cost effective than anything else, we will continue to use it, period. And fyi, the climate changes by the minute. Man made climate change is a hoax. I watched the first 3 minutes and decided not to subscribe because you lied.

Have you done a video yet about us coming out of an ice age? That pretty much explains climate change. Love your videos.

The problem is that most "clean" energy isn't. While shifting to wind and solar and nuclear might stop climate change in the short run - and that's urgent now - they DON'T stop pollution and environmental harm. We must work harder to find environmentally sustainable clean energy. We need our greatest minds and funding to work on this challenge. In the meantime, we should plant as many trees as possible. They're nature's carbon sync and filter and they reflect infrared energy - cooling the surface of the planet. And their existence is critical to our delicate web of life. Our hubris to replace trees with machines is almost laughable if people weren't actually taking it seriously. And, cities like NYC shouldn't even exist ecologically.

Help the Earth by reducing your energy footprint where you can and planting trees and native plants. It's time that we stop fighting with the Earth and realize that we're part of it.

You are a very insightful young lady. I am old. I won't be around to see people like yourself accomplish the things that will save the planet. You WILL solve that problem. Thanks

The use of the word 'clean' energy is in itself, is simply not true. solar and wind power take more energy that they will ever produce in the lifetime. Please do not blend pollution with weather - they are also falsely interchanged far to often.

Climate change is a hoax, and any change is not attributed to humans, co2 is no problem more co2 is just greener forests, larger crops and more abundant oceans, carbon is needed by every living thing, maybe look at William Happler and see the truth

It's obvious to me that any environmental "solution" that requires people to degrade the quality of life is not really a solution.

But isn't it tremoundously more difficult and less cost efficient to produce clean energy?

Energy is such a corruption industry as well. How can we pose this so that the super rich oil, coal and electric companies don't pour water on renewable energy progress?

The biggest issue that no one talks about because it has so much controversy. But the world simply has too many people. We need to find a sustainable and ethical way to stop population explosion

Wow so genius of you to look at quality of life

Total bs

Climate change is a joke

The rich do not want to improve people lives.
Poor countries are good for rich countries.
Why is every thing made in china? answer cheap labour.