Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

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... show more

Electroverse

44,978 subscribers

21,606 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & Politika Bilim & Teknoloji

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

🇺🇸 ENERGY SEC. WRIGHT: WIND AND SOLAR CAN’T REPLACE RELIABLE ENERGY "The problem with wind is that the wind doesn't always blow. If the wind is blowing, you can say it's powered by wind power, then the wind stops or the wind gets weaker. Something has to fill that gap in always be there. So when you add wind and solar onto a grid, you don't remove the need for coal plants, for nuclear plants, for natural gas plants, that work all the time. So to maintain two grids instead of one grid is always more expensive." Source: Fox News

🇺🇸 ENERGY SEC. WRIGHT: WIND AND SOLAR CAN’T REPLACE RELIABLE ENERGY "The problem with wind is that the wind doesn't always blow. If the wind is blowing, you can say it's powered by wind power, then the wind stops or the wind gets weaker. Something has to fill that gap in always be there. So when you add wind and solar onto a grid, you don't remove the need for coal plants, for nuclear plants, for natural gas plants, that work all the time. So to maintain two grids instead of one grid is always more expensive." Source: Fox News

Mario Nawfal

208,235 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

"Almost all wind turbines are produced in China. We need to ask China, how many wind power stations do they have? So far, not a single one has been found. They use coal and oil, gas, and a bit of nuclear energy, but they don't have wind turbines. They produce and sell them to suckers like Europe and what the United States used to be," Trump's statement about wind energy at a meeting with oil industry leaders became the most notable, together with statements about Greenland, in the European segment of social networks.

"Almost all wind turbines are produced in China. We need to ask China, how many wind power stations do they have? So far, not a single one has been found. They use coal and oil, gas, and a bit of nuclear energy, but they don't have wind turbines. They produce and sell them to suckers like Europe and what the United States used to be," Trump's statement about wind energy at a meeting with oil industry leaders became the most notable, together with statements about Greenland, in the European segment of social networks.

Sprinter Press

28,350 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

CNN: He claimed that China builds a lot of wind turbines and manufactures them for others, but refuses to use it itself, barely uses wind power. In fact, China is the world leader in the use of wind power. It is building additional wind power in China far faster than the pace at which the U.S. Is building in the United States itself. So the idea that China is just, you know, foisting this terrible source of energy on other countries while refusing to use it is a reversal of reality.

CNN: He claimed that China builds a lot of wind turbines and manufactures them for others, but refuses to use it itself, barely uses wind power. In fact, China is the world leader in the use of wind power. It is building additional wind power in China far faster than the pace at which the U.S. Is building in the United States itself. So the idea that China is just, you know, foisting this terrible source of energy on other countries while refusing to use it is a reversal of reality.

Acyn

213,926 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Wind power is sold as technological progress, but German professor Ludecke disagrees and has called it a return to the Medieval Ages. His calculation puts Germany's onshore wind output at an annual average of just 3.6 watts per square meter, whereas a coal plant comes in at 7,000 watts. That gap cannot be fixed with a taller tower or a larger blade. Wind is weak, scattered and weather dependent. And the output collapses quickly: half the wind speed and the available power falls to one-eighth. To harvest wind, turbines must be spread across vast areas, connected by new transmission lines and backed by reliable power plants for when the wind drops. Civilization advanced by replacing diffuse, unreliable energy with concentrated controllable power. Net Zero reverses that progress.

Wind power is sold as technological progress, but German professor Ludecke disagrees and has called it a return to the Medieval Ages. His calculation puts Germany's onshore wind output at an annual average of just 3.6 watts per square meter, whereas a coal plant comes in at 7,000 watts. That gap cannot be fixed with a taller tower or a larger blade. Wind is weak, scattered and weather dependent. And the output collapses quickly: half the wind speed and the available power falls to one-eighth. To harvest wind, turbines must be spread across vast areas, connected by new transmission lines and backed by reliable power plants for when the wind drops. Civilization advanced by replacing diffuse, unreliable energy with concentrated controllable power. Net Zero reverses that progress.

Electroverse

11,302 görüntüleme • 9 gün önce

Activists in Scotland have installed Wind Turbines on the fourth hole of Trump’s Golf Course and then placed a sign that says “Choose wind Dump Trump”! You know this is going to anger him since he hates any kind of Windmills/Wind Turbines.

Activists in Scotland have installed Wind Turbines on the fourth hole of Trump’s Golf Course and then placed a sign that says “Choose wind Dump Trump”! You know this is going to anger him since he hates any kind of Windmills/Wind Turbines.

Suzie rizzio

43,719 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Mining 1 ton of rare earth minerals produces about 1 ton of radioactive waste, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT’s estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science’s estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines — more than America’s nuclear industry, which produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. Shut down the wind industry and built nuclear. It's better for the planet.

Mining 1 ton of rare earth minerals produces about 1 ton of radioactive waste, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT’s estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science’s estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines — more than America’s nuclear industry, which produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. Shut down the wind industry and built nuclear. It's better for the planet.

John Lee Pettimore

27,406 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is forecasting a 25% downturn in farm profits, but some farmers in Iowa are installing wind turbines to offset some of those losses. There are now more than 6,000 wind turbines in Iowa that churn out approximately 60% of the state's energy.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is forecasting a 25% downturn in farm profits, but some farmers in Iowa are installing wind turbines to offset some of those losses. There are now more than 6,000 wind turbines in Iowa that churn out approximately 60% of the state's energy.

CBS Evening News with Tony Dokoupil

23,624 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Albanese is a disgraceful liar. The concern about whales and offshore wind turbines has nothing to do with a whales ability to “steer around” wind turbines as Albanese is trying to argue. The wind turbines proposed off the NSW coast are floating wind turbines anchored to the seabed with mooring cables. And when you put 300 turbines in confined area you create a labyrinth of mooring cables and electrical cables which presents a risk of both "secondary" and "tertiary" entanglement for whales. “Secondary” entanglement is presumed to be the main entanglement-related concern when marine debris like lost fishing gear became ensnared around mooring lines and/or cables, and subsequently entangled marine wildlife. To group 300 giant offshore floating wind turbines in the middle of a whale migration zone is reckless environmental vandalism. Albanese was deceiving the Australian public, and Dutton wasn’t across his brief to call him out. If you care about protecting the environment from renewables zealots and fanatics - vote 1 Libertarian

Albanese is a disgraceful liar. The concern about whales and offshore wind turbines has nothing to do with a whales ability to “steer around” wind turbines as Albanese is trying to argue. The wind turbines proposed off the NSW coast are floating wind turbines anchored to the seabed with mooring cables. And when you put 300 turbines in confined area you create a labyrinth of mooring cables and electrical cables which presents a risk of both "secondary" and "tertiary" entanglement for whales. “Secondary” entanglement is presumed to be the main entanglement-related concern when marine debris like lost fishing gear became ensnared around mooring lines and/or cables, and subsequently entangled marine wildlife. To group 300 giant offshore floating wind turbines in the middle of a whale migration zone is reckless environmental vandalism. Albanese was deceiving the Australian public, and Dutton wasn’t across his brief to call him out. If you care about protecting the environment from renewables zealots and fanatics - vote 1 Libertarian

Craig Kelly:🇦🇺Foundation for Economic Education

26,065 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

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

88,466 görüntüleme • 2 gün önce

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 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Onshore wind is sold as 25-year infrastructure, but a UK and Denmark study found that after just 10 years. The average UK wind farm loses roughly one-third of its output. Then by 12 to 15 years, many become completely uneconomic to run. Less power, more wear, higher maintenance. So the farms need "repowering," they call it. That means ripping out old machines and replacing them early. So more steel, more blades shipped in from China, more waste and more subsidies. The 25-year lifespan claim was short enough, but in reality, turbines are barely lasting a decade.

Onshore wind is sold as 25-year infrastructure, but a UK and Denmark study found that after just 10 years. The average UK wind farm loses roughly one-third of its output. Then by 12 to 15 years, many become completely uneconomic to run. Less power, more wear, higher maintenance. So the farms need "repowering," they call it. That means ripping out old machines and replacing them early. So more steel, more blades shipped in from China, more waste and more subsidies. The 25-year lifespan claim was short enough, but in reality, turbines are barely lasting a decade.

Electroverse

24,686 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

China has one of the largest and most integrated electricity systems. The ARISE NEWS team traveled by Train from Dalian to Shenyang (final destination, Beijing) and I saw massive Wind Turbines. China is the world’s top producer of Wind turbines. Official figures put installed capacity at 640 Gigawatts in 2025 But that’s capacity. Wind doesn’t blow all year. What did the Wind Turbines actually generate? About 1,000 Terrawatt-Hours (TWh). That’s 1 Trillion Kilowatt-Hours (kWh) That’s about 22 times Nigeria’s entire output. Average 5,000MW over a year x 8,760 hours is 43.8 TWh What about the cost of building an onshore wind Turbine? A 5 Megawatt Wind Turbine costs about $4m - $5m according to IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) The Turbine alone isn’t enough. There’s still Transmission, Substations, Batteries, metering and more. Electricity costs money. #China #Wind #Renewables #WindEnergy

China has one of the largest and most integrated electricity systems. The ARISE NEWS team traveled by Train from Dalian to Shenyang (final destination, Beijing) and I saw massive Wind Turbines. China is the world’s top producer of Wind turbines. Official figures put installed capacity at 640 Gigawatts in 2025 But that’s capacity. Wind doesn’t blow all year. What did the Wind Turbines actually generate? About 1,000 Terrawatt-Hours (TWh). That’s 1 Trillion Kilowatt-Hours (kWh) That’s about 22 times Nigeria’s entire output. Average 5,000MW over a year x 8,760 hours is 43.8 TWh What about the cost of building an onshore wind Turbine? A 5 Megawatt Wind Turbine costs about $4m - $5m according to IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) The Turbine alone isn’t enough. There’s still Transmission, Substations, Batteries, metering and more. Electricity costs money. #China #Wind #Renewables #WindEnergy

Rotus

10,035 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Michigan’s been extra windy lately—but that doesn’t mean we’re getting more power from the turbines across the state. In fact, wind turbines are required to shut down in high winds because of safety concerns. Here’s more from David Stevenson, the Mackinac Center’s energy and environmental policy director.

Michigan’s been extra windy lately—but that doesn’t mean we’re getting more power from the turbines across the state. In fact, wind turbines are required to shut down in high winds because of safety concerns. Here’s more from David Stevenson, the Mackinac Center’s energy and environmental policy director.

Mackinac Center

18,715 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce