Environmentalist explains why renewable energy Former president of Greenpeace Canada 1 day ago   04:09

Fox News
Solar and wind farms require large amounts of land and come at a high economic cost, says Michael Shellenberger, Environmental Progress president.

Comments 2305 Comments

Why won't micro grids work?
Timothy Cash
If you put solar panels and a wind mill on all new houses you would never need the grid.
Dig deep and you will find that the solution to the energy problem is already there. It goes back to Nikola Tesla and some other inventors.
Sadly but true, it is kept from the society so people have to use old school technique like fossile, wind, solar, water or whatever...name it.

Stay calm, cool and collected, the energy source will be public soon I think...And research ;)
Glenn MacArthur
In 2016 I heard locked was exploring a new energy technology,Nuclear Fussion reactor technology and was hoping to have a operacting reactor by 2018,so what happened,one might ask,may be you tucker!
Bruh Moment
Nuclear energy can
The Green New Deal is not even finished. Nuclear Power can still be mentioned.
Jess John
The only thing that will save the planet is if mankind goes extinct
POTUS John H Eden
Uranium fever has gone and got me down....uranium fever is spreading all around....
Military History HQ
Lmao my biology teacher who is a big environmentalist said for 10 mins why AOC is stupid and her green new deal
Just cats
Big fan of nuclear energy. It’s so much safer than other energy sources. We need to get over the Soviet era fear of nuclear
TheEarthIsFlat !
You also have to clean the solar panels which wastes water.
In Chernobyl or how ever is spelled you can see people outside watering their lawns while others are in full rad gear.
a wister
save the planet from aoc and the rest of the lunatics u mean!
Smoke? I'm more worried about the planes flying over spraying chemicals for geo engineering
Domingo Valenzuela
LOL u have to love fox news!!
SEAtown Rider
Even though Nuclear can affect a very small portion of the population if there is a spill or accident that land/area can become completely uninhabitable for years if not decades. Contaminating the area around it. Look at Hanford. The half life of nuclear waste is high. They can’t keep it under control. It’s seeping into the land and water.

That being said I think the more research that goes into it the better we’ll become at harnessing the power but also the safety and clean up. Nuclear is more than likely the future of this planet.
Ryan Scott
Nuclear is far too expensive in the modern era for anyone looking for the actual reason why, instead of an editorial disguised as news that confirms their bias.

We just finished a nuclear plant started in 1976 but was point on hold for a couple decades because of low energy prices. It cos about 5 billion to build and now will have very expensive maintenance costs.

The other nuclear plant we are building has cost more than 18 billion, helped bankrupt Westinghouse Electric, and isn't finished.

Renewables have gotten far more reliable and battery technology (the tech that has lagged behind the most in the renewable picture) has begun to see real investment by corporations in recent years.

20 years ago nuclear really was the only option for a baseline of non-carbonated emitting energy but they will be an enormous waste of money at this point because their plants take roughly 20 years to build and based on the dramatic improvements to renewables and battery capacity we have been experiencing renewables will be even more viable then.
Arthur Zettel
Nuclear Power Plants are great. But what do you do with the spent nuclear fuel?
You barrie the spent nuclear fuel in special containment vessels in a salt mine.
We need a advanced technology to be able to safely recover and recycle the spent radioactive fuel. We need advanced nuclear technologies that can harness the radioactivity and transform it into electricity.
I know certain isotopes have half life of 100,000 and 750,000 years. The idea sounds syfy but we need to develop the technology to render these isotopes inert; by draining rapidly the radioactivity by using the principal of entropy. (Entropy) = Is when the more and more somthing is used, the less useful it becomes until it is completely exhausted or inert. Instead of taking hundreds of thousands of years for the isotopes to become inert. It could (Theoretically) take 10 to maybe 45 years to become inert.
The Big Question = Where does the Radioactivity go after it is used?
(Answer) = [Theoretically Speaking], It becomes normal background radiation because of entropy applied by a new advanced technology.
Alan Rahimi
This is far from the truth. The energy problem is not a trivial single parameter problem. Despite some (and only some) of his points being relatively valid, nuclear faces complex challenges just like other renewable energy technology. It is important to remember not to listen to the news when scientific topics are covered. I encourage you all to read into the energy sector and how everyone can contribute to this complex problem. I, also, encourage everyone to critically analyse scientific work, rather than just accepting it. I hope this helped.
Alex Hatfield
I'm also an environmental scientist and this man is correct. This green new deal is horrendous and anyone studying renewable knows that.
Allen Mathew
He seems pretty dumb ... They are worried about people going off grid...
Add Reply

Former president of Greenpeace Canada Environmentalist explains why renewable energy 1 day ago   06:35

Patrick Moore, former Greenpeace Canada president, and WeatherBell.com chief meteorologist Joes Bastardi discuss the faults in the Democrats' Green New Deal.

Related Videos