Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "The Renewable Energy Fail" video.

@Snugggg That was switched because it was more economical over time. "Clean" energy isn't. It's more expensive, leaves just as big of a carbon footprint as what it's replacing, destroys ecosystems and wildlife at a much higher rate than what we use now (even counting oil spills), and has a much worse ecological impact for mining the minerals and disposal. Why would you invest in something more expensive, less reliable, and more destructive then what it's replacing? Edit: Some uncomfortable truths for you, but all true nonetheless. The reason it destroys the ecosystems and wildlife worse than an oil spill is because life will return where a spill has occurred. The grass and plants won't around solar panels (running off wildlife from the area) and the wind turbines will keep killing massive numbers of birds and insects for as long as one is placed there. The windmills also run off wildlife from the area due to the sound coming from them in the ground. I live in Oklahoma around an area with a lot of them. There is almost no deer population here now because of them.
14
@huckwach3074 They are terrible. The mining for the minerals causes far more ecological damage as does disposal of them. People need to wake the hell up about this stuff.
13
@MelissaR784 That isn't true anymore. A way to use the highest level of dangerous waste as fuel has been found so we can now recycle it. The rest is not really that dangerous. The majority of waste is just everyday objects used by workers in the plant that are very low radiation. Not much higher than background radiation you're exposed to all the time. That and the intermediate level waste can be stored in boreholes created by fracking and retrieved later if need be. A technique to do that was developed last year. So unless you think something being stored 5,000+ feet below the surface is going to impact the environment, it's not an issue. Just because some countries have stopped studying nuclear power and making improvements doesn't mean all have. Edit: Using less radioactive and more easily obtained elements has also shown very promising results in maintaining energy output but creating less waste.
10
@benjones8977 One look at the "Green New Deal" tells you that. No more driving yourself around. All transportation would be public, forcing people to live closer together. No more airplanes. They'll be replaced with high speed rail so no more flying to another country. That will force people to stay close to their families or destroy families because otherwise they'll be almost completely cutoff from them. No more real meat and synthetic meat will be too expensive for most people forcing people to eat bugs for protein or go vegan. The "deal" forces people to live in cities, eat like a 3rd world country, be trapped where you are, and gives the government complete control over all of it.
8
@lowegule135 Do you understand how markets work? If a good alternative presents itself consumers will buy it and make it the main source overtime. The scenario you're trying to present would be like all but a single first world country having airplanes. It's ridiculous and you know it so I don't know why you'd think that's remotely a decent point. The problem is people and governments are so gung ho on this subject that they ignore the issues with it. Technology just isn't there yet to support the current plan.
5
@dylanc9145 It's not "young" and this still makes her analogy the same as what the comment claims. Ignoring the current technological shortcomings of "clean" energy isn't helpful and isn't productive.
3
@LaminarSound That claim has created so many panics over the decades. It's caused global disasters as governments panic. We're heading for the same situation in 2030 when magically we're going to eliminate power from fossil fuels. It's going to get ugly.
2