Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

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...

Electroversenet's profile picture

Electroverse

46,728 subscribers

13,445 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

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.
1:12

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

20,738 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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.
0:46

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 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

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.
0:34

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 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Kevin Maguire on #GMB: "If you have a war in Iran, the price of solar or wind doesn't go up.. there's also a whole question about why household bills are tied to gas prices when the companies selling [to] us, the cost of their wind & Solar.. hasn't gone up"
0:30

Kevin Maguire on #GMB: "If you have a war in Iran, the price of solar or wind doesn't go up.. there's also a whole question about why household bills are tied to gas prices when the companies selling [to] us, the cost of their wind & Solar.. hasn't gone up"

Saul Staniforth

276,644 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

LIAR. Bowen is lying to the Australian public. Again. To claim that "the most unreliable part our energy system is coal" is just an unmitigated lie. Coal is backbone of our electricity grid, and it has to flex up and down because of the total unreliability of wind and solar. Australia deserves better than a dishonest liar as Energy Minister.
0:22

LIAR. Bowen is lying to the Australian public. Again. To claim that "the most unreliable part our energy system is coal" is just an unmitigated lie. Coal is backbone of our electricity grid, and it has to flex up and down because of the total unreliability of wind and solar. Australia deserves better than a dishonest liar as Energy Minister.

Craig Kelly:🇦🇺Foundation for Economic Education

79,299 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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.
0:38

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

"There is no such thing as renewable energy," says geologist and energy expert Scott Tinker. Sunlight and wind are continuously replenished. Solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries are not - they require mining, vast quantities of materials, manufacturing, land, backup power, and eventual replacement. Tinker is not anti-wind or anti-solar. His point is that low-density intermittent energy cannot simply replace the dense, dispatchable power modern civilization depends on. When the sun sets or the wind drops, electricity still has to come from storage, gas, nuclear, or some other firm source. And despite decades of "energy transition" (and the trillions spent), fossil fuels still provide 86% of global primary energy. The real transition, Tinker argues, will come through increasingly dense, reliable, and cleaner energy: top of the list being natural gas and nuclear. Affordable energy creates prosperity. Policy should follow physics.
0:53

"There is no such thing as renewable energy," says geologist and energy expert Scott Tinker. Sunlight and wind are continuously replenished. Solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries are not - they require mining, vast quantities of materials, manufacturing, land, backup power, and eventual replacement. Tinker is not anti-wind or anti-solar. His point is that low-density intermittent energy cannot simply replace the dense, dispatchable power modern civilization depends on. When the sun sets or the wind drops, electricity still has to come from storage, gas, nuclear, or some other firm source. And despite decades of "energy transition" (and the trillions spent), fossil fuels still provide 86% of global primary energy. The real transition, Tinker argues, will come through increasingly dense, reliable, and cleaner energy: top of the list being natural gas and nuclear. Affordable energy creates prosperity. Policy should follow physics.

Electroverse

12,236 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen

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.
0:55

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 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

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.
0:38

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 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

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).
0:46

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

92,629 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen

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.
1:15

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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
3:39

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

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.
0:47

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.

Electroverse

70,174 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

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.
0:37

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 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

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.
0:27

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

99,492 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Coal prices have risen internationally but Ukraine had nothing to do with #energy prices rising in Australia. Investment in #solar and #wind is to blame. It is important that the government in this country start facing reality and stop hiding the problem. The #Ukraine has nothing to do with #coal prices in this country. In fact, Australian coal prices did not rise at all under their existing long term contracts for our #coal-fired power stations. The government must stop misleading parliament that rising electricity prices in Australia are due to a war in the Ukraine. Massive solar and wind #subsidies are the cause of Australians suffering some of the highest #electricity prices in the world. Every time a coal fired power station is shut in this country we see yet the another spike in our power bills because unreliable #renewables cannot provide the same inexpensive baseload power supply. This government's Safeguard Mechanism Bill will add even more fines to reliable coal-fired power and yet more pain for Australian households. #UnitedNations #ClimateScam #Australia
1:31

Coal prices have risen internationally but Ukraine had nothing to do with #energy prices rising in Australia. Investment in #solar and #wind is to blame. It is important that the government in this country start facing reality and stop hiding the problem. The #Ukraine has nothing to do with #coal prices in this country. In fact, Australian coal prices did not rise at all under their existing long term contracts for our #coal-fired power stations. The government must stop misleading parliament that rising electricity prices in Australia are due to a war in the Ukraine. Massive solar and wind #subsidies are the cause of Australians suffering some of the highest #electricity prices in the world. Every time a coal fired power station is shut in this country we see yet the another spike in our power bills because unreliable #renewables cannot provide the same inexpensive baseload power supply. This government's Safeguard Mechanism Bill will add even more fines to reliable coal-fired power and yet more pain for Australian households. #UnitedNations #ClimateScam #Australia

Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺

35,763 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren