Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

As temperatures collapsed below zero across Texas this week, so too did the state's renewable power generation. Wind, solar and batteries supplied just 7% of electricity as the storm hit. Solar output dropped first, cut by heavy cloud cover and low winter sun angles. Wind generation followed as the... cold intensified. Renewable outages surged. The grid held on for one reason: dispatchable power. Coal generation ramped. Nuclear output stayed steady, while natural gas carried the bulk of the load. Texas avoided a humanitarian crisis because firm generation replaced failing renewables. The nationwide picture is the same. On Sunday, January 25, fossil fuels (plus nuclear) supplied 82% of U.S. electricity. This is what keeps the heating on when Americans need it most. Not ideology.show more

Electroverse

39,610 subscribers

70,174 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Solar and wind are sold as cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear using a number called LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy). But LCOE is a junk metric. It pretends that one-megawatt-hour of intermittent power is the same as one-megawatt-hour of reliable power. It isn't. When the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, you still need electricity. So backup plants (coal, gas or nuclear) must run in the background, ready to fire instantly. LCOE fails to count that cost. It also ignores the miles of transmission lines for remote wind farms, the giant storage systems to cover lulls, the stabilizers to keep frequency steady, and the massive overbuild needed just to survive bad weather weeks.These hidden costs explode as wind and solar take over more of the grid. On paper, LCOE makes these renewables look cheap. In reality, they drive up costs system-wide. That's why nations with the most wind and solar have the highest electricity prices. LCOE isn't just misleading, it's a lie.

Solar and wind are sold as cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear using a number called LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy). But LCOE is a junk metric. It pretends that one-megawatt-hour of intermittent power is the same as one-megawatt-hour of reliable power. It isn't. When the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, you still need electricity. So backup plants (coal, gas or nuclear) must run in the background, ready to fire instantly. LCOE fails to count that cost. It also ignores the miles of transmission lines for remote wind farms, the giant storage systems to cover lulls, the stabilizers to keep frequency steady, and the massive overbuild needed just to survive bad weather weeks.These hidden costs explode as wind and solar take over more of the grid. On paper, LCOE makes these renewables look cheap. In reality, they drive up costs system-wide. That's why nations with the most wind and solar have the highest electricity prices. LCOE isn't just misleading, it's a lie.

Electroverse

13,404 views • 4 months ago

California has built one of the largest solar fleets in the world. Panels are strewn across deserts, rooftops and valleys, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. It was promised as the power of the future. Then the duck curve hit. Solar floods the grid during the height of the day, far more than California can use, so operators are forced to dump gigawatts of power. Then the sun sets and solar output collapses to zero, just as evening demand spikes. California then scrambles to fire up gas plants to keep the lights on,with billions more spent on this backup generation. The world's solar capital ends every day running on fossil fuels. A 24-7 gas grid would cost far less to construct and maintain than solar, and it would actually work 24-7.

California has built one of the largest solar fleets in the world. Panels are strewn across deserts, rooftops and valleys, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. It was promised as the power of the future. Then the duck curve hit. Solar floods the grid during the height of the day, far more than California can use, so operators are forced to dump gigawatts of power. Then the sun sets and solar output collapses to zero, just as evening demand spikes. California then scrambles to fire up gas plants to keep the lights on,with billions more spent on this backup generation. The world's solar capital ends every day running on fossil fuels. A 24-7 gas grid would cost far less to construct and maintain than solar, and it would actually work 24-7.

Electroverse

167,952 views • 5 months ago

Since 2020, Germany has added 14 gigawatts of wind capacity, but annual electricity output has stayed around 106 terawatt-hours. More turbines, no more electricity. Die Welt says the system is hitting reality: weak winds, grid bottlenecks, and poor inland sites, with some turbines actually shading (or blocking) others. Then solar joins the mess. On sunny days, solar floods the grid, so wind gets curtailed. At peak output, solar gets curtailed, too. Too much power at the wrong time. Then evening arrives, or thick cloud rolls in, and solar collapses. So gas and coal step back in to save the lights from going out. Fossil fuels come to Germany's rescue every evening. Billions of dollars spent on more hardware. But output has remained flat.

Since 2020, Germany has added 14 gigawatts of wind capacity, but annual electricity output has stayed around 106 terawatt-hours. More turbines, no more electricity. Die Welt says the system is hitting reality: weak winds, grid bottlenecks, and poor inland sites, with some turbines actually shading (or blocking) others. Then solar joins the mess. On sunny days, solar floods the grid, so wind gets curtailed. At peak output, solar gets curtailed, too. Too much power at the wrong time. Then evening arrives, or thick cloud rolls in, and solar collapses. So gas and coal step back in to save the lights from going out. Fossil fuels come to Germany's rescue every evening. Billions of dollars spent on more hardware. But output has remained flat.

Electroverse

11,587 views • 1 month ago

Britain has paid billions in subsidies to build thousands of turbines across its countryside. But when high pressure systems move in, wind collapses. During these calm spells, wind generation can fall to almost nothing, as low as 0.2% of the grid. When that happens, the grid scrambles. Coal is restarted, gas plants carry the bulk of the load and supply warnings are issued. This is the reality few in elected office seem to grasp. When the weather calms, which it regularly does, wind power disappears from the grid. Britain only stays online thanks to dispatchable energy systems picking up the slack. The country would be better off, both financially and in terms of energy security, if it simply ran off dispatchable power in the first place.

Britain has paid billions in subsidies to build thousands of turbines across its countryside. But when high pressure systems move in, wind collapses. During these calm spells, wind generation can fall to almost nothing, as low as 0.2% of the grid. When that happens, the grid scrambles. Coal is restarted, gas plants carry the bulk of the load and supply warnings are issued. This is the reality few in elected office seem to grasp. When the weather calms, which it regularly does, wind power disappears from the grid. Britain only stays online thanks to dispatchable energy systems picking up the slack. The country would be better off, both financially and in terms of energy security, if it simply ran off dispatchable power in the first place.

Electroverse

11,382 views • 5 months ago

If emissions reduction were the real goal, nuclear would already dominate. First off, it is the safest energy source per unit of power produced. Secondly, it has the lowest life cycle CO2 emissions, lower than coal, gas and even wind and solar. Thirdly, nuclear runs 93% of the time. Wind and solar don't come anywhere near that, just 33% and 23% respectively. And on top of all that, a one gigawatt nuclear plant fits on about one square mile and powers 750,000 homes. Wind and solar require vastly more land, materials and backup batteries for the same power. If climate alarmism were serious, the answer would be nuclear.

If emissions reduction were the real goal, nuclear would already dominate. First off, it is the safest energy source per unit of power produced. Secondly, it has the lowest life cycle CO2 emissions, lower than coal, gas and even wind and solar. Thirdly, nuclear runs 93% of the time. Wind and solar don't come anywhere near that, just 33% and 23% respectively. And on top of all that, a one gigawatt nuclear plant fits on about one square mile and powers 750,000 homes. Wind and solar require vastly more land, materials and backup batteries for the same power. If climate alarmism were serious, the answer would be nuclear.

Electroverse

12,082 views • 1 month ago

$There is no energy transition. Oil, coal and gas still supply 87% of the world's energy - roughly the same share as 20 years ago. Despite trillions in subsidies, solar and wind barely register on the global chart, accounting for just 6.5% of the primary energy supply. Fossil fuel use keeps rising, particularly in China and India. The renewable revolution can still only power a small fraction of the planet, and only when the sun shines or the wind blows. This is the data the headlines leave out. The transition isn't happening. It's a slogan.$

There is no energy transition. Oil, coal and gas still supply 87% of the world's energy - roughly the same share as 20 years ago. Despite trillions in subsidies, solar and wind barely register on the global chart, accounting for just 6.5% of the primary energy supply. Fossil fuel use keeps rising, particularly in China and India. The renewable revolution can still only power a small fraction of the planet, and only when the sun shines or the wind blows. This is the data the headlines leave out. The transition isn't happening. It's a slogan.

Electroverse

21,028 views • 3 months ago

If emissions reduction were the real goal, nuclear would already dominate. First off, it is the safest energy source per unit of power produced. Secondly, it has the lowest life cycle CO2 emissions. Lower than coal, gas and even wind and solar. Thirdly, nuclear runs 93% of the time. Wind and solar don't come anywhere near that, just 33% and 23% respectively. And on top of all that, a one-gigawatt nuclear plant fits on about one square mile and powers 750,000 homes. Wind and solar require vastly more land, materials and backup batteries for the same power. If climate alarmism were serious, the answer would be nuclear. The rest is just theater.

If emissions reduction were the real goal, nuclear would already dominate. First off, it is the safest energy source per unit of power produced. Secondly, it has the lowest life cycle CO2 emissions. Lower than coal, gas and even wind and solar. Thirdly, nuclear runs 93% of the time. Wind and solar don't come anywhere near that, just 33% and 23% respectively. And on top of all that, a one-gigawatt nuclear plant fits on about one square mile and powers 750,000 homes. Wind and solar require vastly more land, materials and backup batteries for the same power. If climate alarmism were serious, the answer would be nuclear. The rest is just theater.

Electroverse

16,013 views • 4 months ago

The UK has 32 GW of installed wind capacity, but that is the brochure figure. Over the weekend, output fell to just 0.6 GW (less than 2%). And it happened overnight, when solar was at zero. So Britain had a renewable fleet on paper, but functionally nothing arriving on the grid. For hours, wind stayed below 10% of capacity. Batteries do not fix that. They smooth short gaps. They cannot carry a country through long wind droughts. So the real system still needs gas. Ready, paid for, and able to run immediately at 100% capacity whenever weather-based power drops out. That is the hidden cost. Build the renewables, then build the backup, then pretend the first system replaced the second.

The UK has 32 GW of installed wind capacity, but that is the brochure figure. Over the weekend, output fell to just 0.6 GW (less than 2%). And it happened overnight, when solar was at zero. So Britain had a renewable fleet on paper, but functionally nothing arriving on the grid. For hours, wind stayed below 10% of capacity. Batteries do not fix that. They smooth short gaps. They cannot carry a country through long wind droughts. So the real system still needs gas. Ready, paid for, and able to run immediately at 100% capacity whenever weather-based power drops out. That is the hidden cost. Build the renewables, then build the backup, then pretend the first system replaced the second.

Electroverse

11,627 views • 2 months ago

In 2016, South Australia learned what happens when a grid leans too hard on the wind. The Aussie state led the world in renewable dependence, with about 40% of its electricity coming from wind. Then a strong storm hit, and no less than nine wind farms cut their output, removing more than 450 megawatts in a matter of seconds. That cumulative loss tripped the Heywood interconnector, and the entire state went dark - about 1.7 million people without power. An official AEMO report found the sudden reduction in wind output was the key driver of the system collapse. South Australia had to restart the grid using diesel black-start generators and gas power plants. A weather-dependent grid died in seconds, and only fossil fuels brought it back.

In 2016, South Australia learned what happens when a grid leans too hard on the wind. The Aussie state led the world in renewable dependence, with about 40% of its electricity coming from wind. Then a strong storm hit, and no less than nine wind farms cut their output, removing more than 450 megawatts in a matter of seconds. That cumulative loss tripped the Heywood interconnector, and the entire state went dark - about 1.7 million people without power. An official AEMO report found the sudden reduction in wind output was the key driver of the system collapse. South Australia had to restart the grid using diesel black-start generators and gas power plants. A weather-dependent grid died in seconds, and only fossil fuels brought it back.

Electroverse

20,401 views • 2 months ago

A cold winter is exposing Germany's energy choices. Natural gas storage levels are dropping fast. In Bavaria, one major site is just 6% full While nationally, storage has slipped below 38%, a level officially classified as "critical". Household supply is protected, for now, but Germany's industry is not. Energy-intensive factories, particularly in southern regions, face shutdown risk. Renewables are not covering the gap. Low wind and solar output has pushed fossil fuels back to supplying the majority of Germany's electricity, with retired coal plants called back into action to save the country from freezing to a halt. This is what happens when ideology replaces energy security.

A cold winter is exposing Germany's energy choices. Natural gas storage levels are dropping fast. In Bavaria, one major site is just 6% full While nationally, storage has slipped below 38%, a level officially classified as "critical". Household supply is protected, for now, but Germany's industry is not. Energy-intensive factories, particularly in southern regions, face shutdown risk. Renewables are not covering the gap. Low wind and solar output has pushed fossil fuels back to supplying the majority of Germany's electricity, with retired coal plants called back into action to save the country from freezing to a halt. This is what happens when ideology replaces energy security.

Electroverse

38,041 views • 5 months ago

Batteries can now meet 75 percent of average grid demand and 44 percent of peak demand for 4 hours every day in the world's 4th-largest economy at a cost less than 1 percent the price of electricity California’s main grid now has over 17 GW of batteries, along with over 23 GW of solar and 12 GW of wind. Average demand is less than 23 GW. The growth of solar, wind, and batteries has helped eliminate 62 percent of all fossil gas use on the grid in 2026 versus 2023. Strikingly, those batteries can now meet three-quarters of average demand and 44 percent of peak demand for four hours every day. What is more, wind-water-solar renewables have met more than 100 percent of grid demand for 100 of the last 101 days and for 87 percent of all days in 2026, for an average of 5.4 hours per day. Given the low cost of batteries, solar, and wind relative to the price of electricity, it is abundantly clear that no major barrier remains to eliminating fossil gas for electricity entirely in California, but also ultimately throughout the world. Nameplate capacities of batteries and renewables in California Renewable trend in California Video

Batteries can now meet 75 percent of average grid demand and 44 percent of peak demand for 4 hours every day in the world's 4th-largest economy at a cost less than 1 percent the price of electricity California’s main grid now has over 17 GW of batteries, along with over 23 GW of solar and 12 GW of wind. Average demand is less than 23 GW. The growth of solar, wind, and batteries has helped eliminate 62 percent of all fossil gas use on the grid in 2026 versus 2023. Strikingly, those batteries can now meet three-quarters of average demand and 44 percent of peak demand for four hours every day. What is more, wind-water-solar renewables have met more than 100 percent of grid demand for 100 of the last 101 days and for 87 percent of all days in 2026, for an average of 5.4 hours per day. Given the low cost of batteries, solar, and wind relative to the price of electricity, it is abundantly clear that no major barrier remains to eliminating fossil gas for electricity entirely in California, but also ultimately throughout the world. Nameplate capacities of batteries and renewables in California Renewable trend in California Video

Mark Z. Jacobson

15,740 views • 2 days ago

Wind and solar look cheap on paper, but only because their true costs are hidden. Power grids must balance supply and demand every second. Wind and solar cannot do that. Their output follows the weather, which is variable. So every megawatt of wind or solar requires a matching megawatt of reliable backup. A 100 MW wind farm does not replace a 100 MW gas plant. The gas plant still has to be built, staffed, fueled and kept ready at all times. Consumers are effectively paying for two systems, but only one is accounted for. Think of it like hiring a worker who only shows up 30% of the time. The hourly wage looks cheap, but you still need a fully trained backup worker available 24-7 to fill in for the other 70%. That backup is required and still costs money even when sitting idle. But the extra cost is ignored. This accounting trick explains why renewables look inexpensive in charts, while electricity prices soar in grids that rely heavily on them. Globally, the renewable failure is clear. In 2024, solar supplied just 1.4% of global primary energy. Wind supplied about 1.5%. Fossil fuels still provided around 87%. This is not a global energy transition. It is a costly experiment played by a handful of Western economies.

Wind and solar look cheap on paper, but only because their true costs are hidden. Power grids must balance supply and demand every second. Wind and solar cannot do that. Their output follows the weather, which is variable. So every megawatt of wind or solar requires a matching megawatt of reliable backup. A 100 MW wind farm does not replace a 100 MW gas plant. The gas plant still has to be built, staffed, fueled and kept ready at all times. Consumers are effectively paying for two systems, but only one is accounted for. Think of it like hiring a worker who only shows up 30% of the time. The hourly wage looks cheap, but you still need a fully trained backup worker available 24-7 to fill in for the other 70%. That backup is required and still costs money even when sitting idle. But the extra cost is ignored. This accounting trick explains why renewables look inexpensive in charts, while electricity prices soar in grids that rely heavily on them. Globally, the renewable failure is clear. In 2024, solar supplied just 1.4% of global primary energy. Wind supplied about 1.5%. Fossil fuels still provided around 87%. This is not a global energy transition. It is a costly experiment played by a handful of Western economies.

Electroverse

20,529 views • 1 month ago

THE LIE: Kamala HQ suggests your TV wouldn’t turn off if American energy was solely reliant on renewable energy. THE TRUTH: Your power, or TV in this case, would turn off if American energy was solely reliant on renewable energy. In the United States, wind makes up only 9.8% of America’s energy. "Wind is the largest source of renewable electricity generation in the United States, providing 9.8% of the country's electricity." (cleanpower. org.) Wind power has become problematic due to the fact that most locations are not windy enough, as Trump suggested. "Wind projects may not be cost-competitive in some locations that are not windy enough... Ideal wind sites are often in remote locations. Installation challenges must be overcome to bring electricity from wind farms to urban areas, where it is needed to meet demand." (energy. gov)

THE LIE: Kamala HQ suggests your TV wouldn’t turn off if American energy was solely reliant on renewable energy. THE TRUTH: Your power, or TV in this case, would turn off if American energy was solely reliant on renewable energy. In the United States, wind makes up only 9.8% of America’s energy. "Wind is the largest source of renewable electricity generation in the United States, providing 9.8% of the country's electricity." (cleanpower. org.) Wind power has become problematic due to the fact that most locations are not windy enough, as Trump suggested. "Wind projects may not be cost-competitive in some locations that are not windy enough... Ideal wind sites are often in remote locations. Installation challenges must be overcome to bring electricity from wind farms to urban areas, where it is needed to meet demand." (energy. gov)

Media Lies

654,041 views • 1 year ago

The UK is pushing solar power despite having some of the lowest sunlight levels in the world. Northern Britain receives less sunshine than Canada. According to a World Bank solar resource assessment, the UK ranks among the least suitable countries for solar generation, second only to Ireland in Europe. Low sunlight means low output and greater reliance on backup power. Moreover, the UK government has approved solar geoengineering research - experiments designed to dim incoming sunlight. So the policy is this: build solar in a low sunlight country, while exploring ways to block the sun.

The UK is pushing solar power despite having some of the lowest sunlight levels in the world. Northern Britain receives less sunshine than Canada. According to a World Bank solar resource assessment, the UK ranks among the least suitable countries for solar generation, second only to Ireland in Europe. Low sunlight means low output and greater reliance on backup power. Moreover, the UK government has approved solar geoengineering research - experiments designed to dim incoming sunlight. So the policy is this: build solar in a low sunlight country, while exploring ways to block the sun.

Electroverse

44,233 views • 3 months ago

$600bn, 4% of the grid, Not ready til the 2040s 👆These are all LIES about nuclear power Here's the facts: 1/ '$600bn Cost' This figure is from the 'Smart' Energy Council (renewable lobby group). It extrapolates the cost of Hinkley C (the most expensive nuclear power plant ever) and literally doubles it. Even the CSIRO assumes lower nuclear capital costs for Australia. 2/ '4% of the grid' This figure is also from the 'Smart' Energy Council from dividing 11GW of nuclear capacity by 300GW of renewable capacity. However, Capacity ≠ Generation. 1GW of renewable capacity generates roughly a third of the power of 1GW of nuclear capacity. 3/ 'Not ready til the 2040s' The IAEA predicts it would take 10-15 years for a new to nuclear country to have nuclear power. The is the advice the Australian Government relies on for nuclear yet is being ignored by the PM & Energy Minister. These claims must be exposed. The nuclear disinformation campaign has gone too far. Also, no wonder the private sector isn't interested in nuclear in Australia. It's literally illegal right now in Australia. Learn more about nuclear: ✍️Sign to lift the ban:

$600bn, 4% of the grid, Not ready til the 2040s 👆These are all LIES about nuclear power Here's the facts: 1/ '$600bn Cost' This figure is from the 'Smart' Energy Council (renewable lobby group). It extrapolates the cost of Hinkley C (the most expensive nuclear power plant ever) and literally doubles it. Even the CSIRO assumes lower nuclear capital costs for Australia. 2/ '4% of the grid' This figure is also from the 'Smart' Energy Council from dividing 11GW of nuclear capacity by 300GW of renewable capacity. However, Capacity ≠ Generation. 1GW of renewable capacity generates roughly a third of the power of 1GW of nuclear capacity. 3/ 'Not ready til the 2040s' The IAEA predicts it would take 10-15 years for a new to nuclear country to have nuclear power. The is the advice the Australian Government relies on for nuclear yet is being ignored by the PM & Energy Minister. These claims must be exposed. The nuclear disinformation campaign has gone too far. Also, no wonder the private sector isn't interested in nuclear in Australia. It's literally illegal right now in Australia. Learn more about nuclear: ✍️Sign to lift the ban:

Will Shackel

39,795 views • 1 year ago

Elon Musk: Here's what we need to have a fully sustainable energy economy. “There are three elements to a sustainable energy future. One is sustainable energy generation, which is primarily wind and solar. There's also hydro, geothermal. I'm actually pro-nuclear. I think nuclear is fine. But it's going to be primarily solar and wind as the primary generators of energy. The second part is you need batteries to store the solar and wind energy, because the sun doesn't shine all the time, the wind doesn't blow all the time. So it's a lot of stationary battery packs. And then you need electric transport. So electric cars, electric planes, boats. And ultimately we can have a fully sustainable energy economy. And it's those three things: solar/wind, stationary battery pack, electric vehicles. So then what are the limiting factors on progress? The limiting factor really will be battery cell production. So that's going to really be the fundamental rate driver.” Source: TED, April 14, 2022.

Elon Musk: Here's what we need to have a fully sustainable energy economy. “There are three elements to a sustainable energy future. One is sustainable energy generation, which is primarily wind and solar. There's also hydro, geothermal. I'm actually pro-nuclear. I think nuclear is fine. But it's going to be primarily solar and wind as the primary generators of energy. The second part is you need batteries to store the solar and wind energy, because the sun doesn't shine all the time, the wind doesn't blow all the time. So it's a lot of stationary battery packs. And then you need electric transport. So electric cars, electric planes, boats. And ultimately we can have a fully sustainable energy economy. And it's those three things: solar/wind, stationary battery pack, electric vehicles. So then what are the limiting factors on progress? The limiting factor really will be battery cell production. So that's going to really be the fundamental rate driver.” Source: TED, April 14, 2022.

ELON CLIPS

12,693 views • 16 days ago

𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚: 𝐀 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲! Under the visionary, action-oriented, and result-driven leadership of Hon’ble PM Shri Narendra Modi ji, India is transforming volatile geopolitical challenges into opportunities in the energy sector. India is fast emerging as a global leader in renewable energy: ✅ 4th in installed renewable energy capacity worldwide ✅ 4th largest in wind power generation ✅ 3rd largest solar producer, surpassing Japan ✅ Achieved 50% electricity generation from non-fossil sources—4 years ahead of target With these milestones, the government under the leadership of Hon’ble PM Shri Narendra Modi ji is steadily advancing towards the goal of net-zero emissions. Narendra Modi PMO India Ministry of Mines Ministry of Coal

𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚: 𝐀 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲! Under the visionary, action-oriented, and result-driven leadership of Hon’ble PM Shri Narendra Modi ji, India is transforming volatile geopolitical challenges into opportunities in the energy sector. India is fast emerging as a global leader in renewable energy: ✅ 4th in installed renewable energy capacity worldwide ✅ 4th largest in wind power generation ✅ 3rd largest solar producer, surpassing Japan ✅ Achieved 50% electricity generation from non-fossil sources—4 years ahead of target With these milestones, the government under the leadership of Hon’ble PM Shri Narendra Modi ji is steadily advancing towards the goal of net-zero emissions. Narendra Modi PMO India Ministry of Mines Ministry of Coal

G Kishan Reddy

11,004 views • 9 months ago

The Unexplainable Power Behind the Shroud of Turin Proves its Authenticity: How much power is 34 thousand billion watts of energy traveling at 1/40th of a billionth of a nanosecond? This instantaneous power is roughly 10 times the entire worlds electricity generation and consumption at any given moment as the global average electricity use is only 3 Terawatts. Imagine every power plant, solar farm, wind turbine, dam and nuclear reactor on Earth running at full capacity….then multiply that output by 10. Thats the power surge required to equal the power that created the image on the Shroud. Anything slower or less precise would have scorched, incinerated or damaged the fine linen. No natural process or current technology can deliver 34 Terawatts uniformly over a large area in a controlled 25 nanosecond pulse without scorching or destroying the linen. This is why the Shroud image remains scientifically unexplained by any known mechanism.

The Unexplainable Power Behind the Shroud of Turin Proves its Authenticity: How much power is 34 thousand billion watts of energy traveling at 1/40th of a billionth of a nanosecond? This instantaneous power is roughly 10 times the entire worlds electricity generation and consumption at any given moment as the global average electricity use is only 3 Terawatts. Imagine every power plant, solar farm, wind turbine, dam and nuclear reactor on Earth running at full capacity….then multiply that output by 10. Thats the power surge required to equal the power that created the image on the Shroud. Anything slower or less precise would have scorched, incinerated or damaged the fine linen. No natural process or current technology can deliver 34 Terawatts uniformly over a large area in a controlled 25 nanosecond pulse without scorching or destroying the linen. This is why the Shroud image remains scientifically unexplained by any known mechanism.

Lion of Judah

72,030 views • 3 months ago