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.

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.... show more

Electroverse

41,490 subscribers

16,013 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Most renewable electricity in the world is not wind or solar, it is hydropower. Hydro produces about 14% of global electricity, and more than half of all renewable power. It is reliable, dispatchable, and produces virtually no CO2 - yet many environmental groups oppose new dams. The same contradiction appears with nuclear power. Nuclear produces zero operational CO2, runs 24 hours a day, and uses far less land than wind or solar. If cutting emissions were truly the priority here, the focus would be obvious: Hydropower and nuclear, not endless wind and solar expansion.

Most renewable electricity in the world is not wind or solar, it is hydropower. Hydro produces about 14% of global electricity, and more than half of all renewable power. It is reliable, dispatchable, and produces virtually no CO2 - yet many environmental groups oppose new dams. The same contradiction appears with nuclear power. Nuclear produces zero operational CO2, runs 24 hours a day, and uses far less land than wind or solar. If cutting emissions were truly the priority here, the focus would be obvious: Hydropower and nuclear, not endless wind and solar expansion.

Electroverse

11,913 views • 5 months ago

Nuclear generates up to 1,000x more power per square meter than wind/solar. That's why wind and solar need 10–25x more materials for the same energy output. Which energy source is actually "green?" Full video:

Nuclear generates up to 1,000x more power per square meter than wind/solar. That's why wind and solar need 10–25x more materials for the same energy output. Which energy source is actually "green?" Full video:

Ben (Promethean Action)

22,781 views • 4 months ago

The world has spent $7 trillion on wind and solar. That global fleet produces an average of around 630 GW. The same $7 trillion could have built roughly 1,400 modern nuclear reactors, producing around 1,400 GW on average -- so more than twice the power. Wind and solar generally last around 20 years (a lot less by some estimates), whereas nuclear plants can operate for 80 years or more. Over 80 years, wind and solar must be built four times -- a cost of $28 trillion to maintain 630 gigawatts. The same $28 trillion spent on nuclear would deliver roughly 5,600 gigawatts -- nearly nine times the power. Also, nuclear produces this regardless of the weather, whereas wind and solar require 24-7 backup (usually gas, not included in these calculations).

The world has spent $7 trillion on wind and solar. That global fleet produces an average of around 630 GW. The same $7 trillion could have built roughly 1,400 modern nuclear reactors, producing around 1,400 GW on average -- so more than twice the power. Wind and solar generally last around 20 years (a lot less by some estimates), whereas nuclear plants can operate for 80 years or more. Over 80 years, wind and solar must be built four times -- a cost of $28 trillion to maintain 630 gigawatts. The same $28 trillion spent on nuclear would deliver roughly 5,600 gigawatts -- nearly nine times the power. Also, nuclear produces this regardless of the weather, whereas wind and solar require 24-7 backup (usually gas, not included in these calculations).

Electroverse

92,519 views • 23 days ago

Germany built one of the largest wind and solar fleets on Earth. It dismantled its nuclear power stations and retired its coal, with the promise that green energy would power its future. The country spent billions transitioning. Then winter arrived, and Dunkelflaut hit - the dark windless dead zone. Wind and solar fell to barely 5% of demand. The grid staggered, and Germany was forced to fire up old coal plants it said had closed forever, and import expensive nuclear from France. This is the physics politicians fail to mention, and a point many people still fail to grasp. When the wind dies and the sun sets, renewables disappear. And the only way the grid survives, the only reason countless millions don't freeze to death, is thanks to oil, coal, nuclear and gas.

Germany built one of the largest wind and solar fleets on Earth. It dismantled its nuclear power stations and retired its coal, with the promise that green energy would power its future. The country spent billions transitioning. Then winter arrived, and Dunkelflaut hit - the dark windless dead zone. Wind and solar fell to barely 5% of demand. The grid staggered, and Germany was forced to fire up old coal plants it said had closed forever, and import expensive nuclear from France. This is the physics politicians fail to mention, and a point many people still fail to grasp. When the wind dies and the sun sets, renewables disappear. And the only way the grid survives, the only reason countless millions don't freeze to death, is thanks to oil, coal, nuclear and gas.

Electroverse

252,727 views • 7 months ago

Since April 2020, the United States has spent $1.5 trillion on wind and solar. All that money for just 17% of the nation's energy mix. For the same cost, America could have built around 40 nuclear power plants. They'd run for 80 years, not 15 or 20 like wind and solar, and would generate at least three times more power each year. That's the real cost of believing the climate fantasy - enormous waste, destabilized grids, and spiraling energy costs.

Since April 2020, the United States has spent $1.5 trillion on wind and solar. All that money for just 17% of the nation's energy mix. For the same cost, America could have built around 40 nuclear power plants. They'd run for 80 years, not 15 or 20 like wind and solar, and would generate at least three times more power each year. That's the real cost of believing the climate fantasy - enormous waste, destabilized grids, and spiraling energy costs.

Electroverse

99,483 views • 4 months ago

Elon Musk: If you covered the entire cleared area around a nuclear power station with solar panels, the solar panels would often produce more electricity than the nuclear plant itself. “If you take a nuclear power station and the whole clear area that's around it, it ends up being quite a bit of land. If you carpeted that land with solar panels, which would generate more, the nuclear power station or the solar panels? And usually, it's the solar panels. Now of course, you could always amp up the nuclear power station, but just taking the way things currently are, that's sort of an interesting data point. It's just to give you a sense of how much energy is hitting the Earth from the sun.” From: Interview at the EEI Annual Convention, June 11, 2015

Elon Musk: If you covered the entire cleared area around a nuclear power station with solar panels, the solar panels would often produce more electricity than the nuclear plant itself. “If you take a nuclear power station and the whole clear area that's around it, it ends up being quite a bit of land. If you carpeted that land with solar panels, which would generate more, the nuclear power station or the solar panels? And usually, it's the solar panels. Now of course, you could always amp up the nuclear power station, but just taking the way things currently are, that's sort of an interesting data point. It's just to give you a sense of how much energy is hitting the Earth from the sun.” From: Interview at the EEI Annual Convention, June 11, 2015

ELON CLIPS

52,173 views • 7 months ago

Lousy energy policy has consequences. Germany destroyed all of their nuclear power plants (for no good reason) and decided solar and wind power would be their strategy. But they needed a backup, and the “Green” party agreed it would be coal power. Germany used to have smart people. But most of them died during WW2.

Lousy energy policy has consequences. Germany destroyed all of their nuclear power plants (for no good reason) and decided solar and wind power would be their strategy. But they needed a backup, and the “Green” party agreed it would be coal power. Germany used to have smart people. But most of them died during WW2.

Wall Street Mav

25,352 views • 1 month ago

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 • 5 months ago

Nuclear uses 1,000 times less land than wind or solar. On a small, beautiful island like ours, that matters. If Labour were serious about nuclear they’d back our amendments to scrap the environmental regulations that simply add costs and do more harm than good to nature.

Nuclear uses 1,000 times less land than wind or solar. On a small, beautiful island like ours, that matters. If Labour were serious about nuclear they’d back our amendments to scrap the environmental regulations that simply add costs and do more harm than good to nature.

Claire Coutinho

450,673 views • 11 months ago

Trump: Wind is a disaster. You can take 1,000 times more than energy out of a hole in the ground this big. It’s called oil and gas. This big that nobody would even see. You can take 1,000 times more power because the wind is intermittent, it doesn't work. We won’t allow it. Starmer: We believe in a mix. Oil and gas will be with us for a very long time. And that will be part of the mix but also wind, solar, increasingly nuclear as we go forward

Trump: Wind is a disaster. You can take 1,000 times more than energy out of a hole in the ground this big. It’s called oil and gas. This big that nobody would even see. You can take 1,000 times more power because the wind is intermittent, it doesn't work. We won’t allow it. Starmer: We believe in a mix. Oil and gas will be with us for a very long time. And that will be part of the mix but also wind, solar, increasingly nuclear as we go forward

Acyn

68,403 views • 1 year ago

Wind turbines are getting bigger, more efficient, and are delivering higher output. That sounds impressive, but it isn't compared to other sources. A single nuclear plant, for example, produces around 1,750 megawatts. To match that, you need roughly 150 large turbines. Wind uses over 100X more land than nuclear for the same output. And turbines, of course, only produce power when the wind is blowing. Nuclear is constant. Then there's the storage requirements. To make wind reliable, you need batteries. At grid scale, that becomes impossible with current technologies. Wind power remains an expensive pipe dream, lining the pockets of a few at the expense of the many.

Wind turbines are getting bigger, more efficient, and are delivering higher output. That sounds impressive, but it isn't compared to other sources. A single nuclear plant, for example, produces around 1,750 megawatts. To match that, you need roughly 150 large turbines. Wind uses over 100X more land than nuclear for the same output. And turbines, of course, only produce power when the wind is blowing. Nuclear is constant. Then there's the storage requirements. To make wind reliable, you need batteries. At grid scale, that becomes impossible with current technologies. Wind power remains an expensive pipe dream, lining the pockets of a few at the expense of the many.

Electroverse

21,610 views • 4 months 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

12,928 views • 1 month ago

Yesterday in South Australia, the wind stopped blowing and the state nearly ran out of power. Prices spiked to the maximum cap under law, and it would have cost someone in Adelaide nearly $5 just to boil a kettle. This is our future under the net-zero delusion, blackouts and unaffordable power bills. South Australia was meant to be the example for the rest of Australia to follow on wind and solar, how's that working out? It's time to ditch the net-zero nonsense, build coal and nuclear and bring down the cost of living for Australians.

Yesterday in South Australia, the wind stopped blowing and the state nearly ran out of power. Prices spiked to the maximum cap under law, and it would have cost someone in Adelaide nearly $5 just to boil a kettle. This is our future under the net-zero delusion, blackouts and unaffordable power bills. South Australia was meant to be the example for the rest of Australia to follow on wind and solar, how's that working out? It's time to ditch the net-zero nonsense, build coal and nuclear and bring down the cost of living for Australians.

Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺

203,380 views • 1 month ago

The world has spent approximately $6–7 trillion cumulatively on wind turbines and solar panels. With that amount, we could have built up to 1,400 standard nuclear power plants (each with ~1–1.2 GW capacity, typical for modern large reactors). With proper maintenance, safety upgrades, and regulatory approvals, many nuclear plants last 60 years- 80 years or more. A typical wind or solar farm lasts about 20 years, meaning we would need to spend up to $21 trillion to produce the same energy as nuclear. With $21 trillion, the world could theoretically fund up to 4,000 nuclear power plants. Now lets talk about wind turbines. Without the Production Tax Credit (PTC), many wind farms were not economically viable from electricity sales alone, due to high upfront costs, intermittency (requiring backup power), and competition from cheaper sources like natural gas. The tax credits effectively offset a significant portion of costs—in some cases covering much or all of the investment for tax-liable entities—turning otherwise marginal or unprofitable projects into attractive ones. Are you seeing the scam? It's time to start building more nuclear and less of these green dream turbines and solar panels.

The world has spent approximately $6–7 trillion cumulatively on wind turbines and solar panels. With that amount, we could have built up to 1,400 standard nuclear power plants (each with ~1–1.2 GW capacity, typical for modern large reactors). With proper maintenance, safety upgrades, and regulatory approvals, many nuclear plants last 60 years- 80 years or more. A typical wind or solar farm lasts about 20 years, meaning we would need to spend up to $21 trillion to produce the same energy as nuclear. With $21 trillion, the world could theoretically fund up to 4,000 nuclear power plants. Now lets talk about wind turbines. Without the Production Tax Credit (PTC), many wind farms were not economically viable from electricity sales alone, due to high upfront costs, intermittency (requiring backup power), and competition from cheaper sources like natural gas. The tax credits effectively offset a significant portion of costs—in some cases covering much or all of the investment for tax-liable entities—turning otherwise marginal or unprofitable projects into attractive ones. Are you seeing the scam? It's time to start building more nuclear and less of these green dream turbines and solar panels.

John Lee Pettimore

120,600 views • 8 months ago

Germany currently has about 26 gigawatt hours of battery storage. Most of it sits in home batteries with only 4.3 gigawatt hours actually serving the grid. Building that storage already cost more than 10 billion euros and at national demand levels it only covers roughly 30 minutes of summer electricity usage. The winter months bring what's known as "Dunkeflaute" - cold dark windless periods and higher energy usage. To survive a 10-day winter lull (the minimum realistic requirement), Germany would need about 12,000 gigawatt hours of batteries, 470 times today's storage. Such a system would weigh roughly 60 million tons and would be made from vast quantities of lithium, nickel, graphite, copper, aluminum and steel, all requiring intensive mining. At current battery prices, the system would cost trillions of euros. And batteries last only 10 to 15 years, meaning the entire system would need constant replacement. The conclusion is unavoidable... Wind and solar require reliable backup power, renewables need oil, coal, gas and nuclear.

Germany currently has about 26 gigawatt hours of battery storage. Most of it sits in home batteries with only 4.3 gigawatt hours actually serving the grid. Building that storage already cost more than 10 billion euros and at national demand levels it only covers roughly 30 minutes of summer electricity usage. The winter months bring what's known as "Dunkeflaute" - cold dark windless periods and higher energy usage. To survive a 10-day winter lull (the minimum realistic requirement), Germany would need about 12,000 gigawatt hours of batteries, 470 times today's storage. Such a system would weigh roughly 60 million tons and would be made from vast quantities of lithium, nickel, graphite, copper, aluminum and steel, all requiring intensive mining. At current battery prices, the system would cost trillions of euros. And batteries last only 10 to 15 years, meaning the entire system would need constant replacement. The conclusion is unavoidable... Wind and solar require reliable backup power, renewables need oil, coal, gas and nuclear.

Electroverse

61,449 views • 2 months ago