Comments by "TeeKay" (@teekay_1) on "Why Green Energy Can't Satisfy Electricity Demands || Peter Zeihan" video.

@festekj It cannot. As much as I admire Musk for his views on free speech, and his creativeness with rockets, electrics cars and such, you need a baseline energy source. By definition, solar cells and batteries cannot do this in a cost-effective way.
9
@TheMrCougarful there's plenty of time. Oil will be with us for another 7 decades, more than enough time to build plenty of nuclear plants.
9
The only issue with Nuclear is the regulatory nightmare from the federal government to get it approved. But the good news is that it is significantly cheaper and more reliable than any other form of energy generation. People will claim that wind and solar are more cost effective, but other than people pushing there is no proof, particularly since we're finding the lifespan of wind and solar farms is 20 years, whereas the lifespan of a nuclear plant is 80+ years. Private equity has already spoken; they're funding nuclear.
7
@festekj I am an expert on science and physics, and what he's proposing is not possible.
4
@williammeek4078 How much wattage are you actually producing and how what size is your electrical panel (number of amps)?
4
@mbern4530 China is rolling out lots of coal plants. So there is that.
3
Yes, but the EV cars simply are inferior to gas/diesel cars in the ways that people care about, which is why ever automaker in the world is pulling back on EVs.
2
@daveloch905 Now you're being silly. Physics is a branch of science. Your doctor has a degree in science, but he's never taken any physics courses past Newtonian Physics. You simply won't accept that EV's and the green movement is not feasible. You've been lied to.
2
@dansanger5340 Nuclear is the cheapest when you consider the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) which measures an energy source’s lifetime costs divided by energy output and is the standard for comparing different energy projects. What wind/solar advocates don't like to talk about is the need to combine solar/wind with natural gas or battery backup power. When you account for that, solar and wind look more expensive than almost any alternative, especially wind and solar are heavily subsidized by governments.
2
Frankly, the government subsidies for green tech are distorting the market in a way that innovators are chasing subsidies rather than customers. EVs are a perfect example of this.
1
@AGenerationJones Well, they didn't confiscate them, they only ever leased them to customers. And it wasn't feasible to support them after the lease. They were only meant as a feasibility test, not a precursor to production. I worked with a guy who was part of that EV-1 program, and that was the actual reason. Not any conspiracy theories about "oil companies killed it"
1
@williammeek4078 name these countries that are 100% getting their electricity from solar cells and batteries. I'll wait while you scramble to do research.
1
@msimon6808 Agreed, but that's a problem you can solve with money.
1
@dansanger5340 Nuclear $71 Coal $93 Natural Gas $103 Wind + Battery $132 Solar + Battery $141 The cost for Wind+ and Solar + takes into account the need to have backup power for these sources of energy and is what's used by California’s Independent System Operator (CAISO) association which assumes a 4-hour lithium-ion battery storage capacity to operate effectively
1
Listen, Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer, and he would pronounce it nucular. Which pretty much sums up his presidency.
1
@Stupid9808 Yes, we will be dependent on oil through the 21st century with a transition to newer forms of energy in roughly 30 years assuming we're investing in the right research. Nuclear will get us over the hump.
1
@vickiehow- The border policies area already written and clear. The executive branch enforces those policies. The current clown show in the white house has chosen to ignore those laws.
1