46 Comments

1. 

   @jonathansteele8601

   January 15, 2024 at 8:53 am

   Not worth watching.

   Reply
2. 

   @fencep

   January 15, 2024 at 8:55 am

   Stupidly privaticing everything. You doing great murica. You can’t even ride an ambulance to the hospital without a bill.

   Reply
3. 

   @justr6982

   January 15, 2024 at 8:57 am

   Bah, he nails the real barrier, the opposition of the rich, then goes into an ideologically driven rant. Fact is that government incubated most of the research around EV and most of red tape exists for good reason or because of the lobbying of oil companies, who have broadly support and encourage the anti-green initiatives of NIMBYS. In fact, the oil industry had a huge hand in encouraging the original anti-green nimbyism against nuclear. The root cause is rich people and rich lobbyists.

   It’s funny that he opens making several clearly political statements about who he is, to signal certain politics, then makes outright ideologically claims about the market, and yet so many people here will praise for him for being non-ideological

   In fact, a bit of a deep dive shows that Faison, who founded Clear Path as a lobbyist group and is a billionaire who largely supports the GOP, which has signalled a complete unwillingness to engage in green energy policy

   Reply
4. 

   @Picci25021973

   January 15, 2024 at 9:06 am

   Clean energy is economically profitable. Solar is twice cheaper than oil, natural gas or coal. Just remove obstacles, and within 2030 we’ll have quadrupled renewables. In EU we moved in that direction, and it pays off! My first PV plant in 2007 took 24 months to be authorized, my second one took 12 months in 2011, my third one took 2 weeks in 2022.

   Reply
5. 

   @Picci25021973

   January 15, 2024 at 9:16 am

   Huh, concerning nuclear powerplant… ask yourself why there is not a single company willing to insure a nuclear power plant. Nuclear is something from 20th century, for simple economic reasons. 21st century civilization will be renewable, otherwise there won’t be a 22nd century one.

   Reply
6. 

   @vickygllc

   January 15, 2024 at 10:18 am

   Enough is enough 💯

   Reply
7. 

   @RickLambert963

   January 15, 2024 at 10:18 am

   WTF is “clean energy”. This guy isn’t a scientist, engineer, or physicist. These energies all have serious problems. Meanwhile. The psychopath billionaire playboy club overlords have suppressed technologies like Zero-point energy because they don’t want to loose control.

   Reply
8. 

   @OldSoulYoungBlood

   January 15, 2024 at 10:47 am

   Great speaker! Government and Lobbying from the fossil fuel industry are the main barriers.

   Reply
9. 

   @darareachphon

   January 15, 2024 at 10:47 am

   Please don’t poison me by putting steel in my water.

   Reply
10. 

    @luckyjim51

    January 15, 2024 at 10:48 am

    How to make clean energy without dirty billionaires…. AKA how to leverage the most money out of a project. every cash cow project is lost until we put the right amount of sugar on it to make it sweet enough to our politicians to get rich also. Nobody care whos watching anymore. There still worried about the 2020 elections…. Wake up America, its time for a 3rd party….

    Reply
11. 

    @Pattamatt1998

    January 15, 2024 at 11:32 am

    It is deeply frustrating that nuclear energy is still a huge boogieman for most people. Modern thorium reactors are by far the cleanest and most efficient form of energy production we currently have available but no, everyone has to clutch their pearls and moan about Chernobyl and Fukushima without realizing both of those cases not only used significantly out of date technology even for their times, but could have been completely prevented or at the very least handled so much better if it wasn’t for government incompetence.

    Reply
    • 

      @weschristiaens3881

      January 15, 2024 at 12:14 pm

      Indeed the latest nuclear plants can work on the waste of the old ones.

      Reply
    • 

      @johnsutherland7561

      January 15, 2024 at 4:44 pm

      Solar can do it for far less. Nuclear leaves countries vulnerable in times of conflict

      Reply
    • 

      @MWhaleK

      January 15, 2024 at 5:04 pm

      I’d say it is partly because when people say “nuclear energy” what comes to mind is old style reactors like Chernobyl. Instead of talking about “nuclear energy” talk about Thorium or other newer more advanced and safer form.

      Reply
12. 

    @unholyrevenger72

    January 15, 2024 at 11:35 am

    Remember these barriers only exist until the institutionalized powers find a way to make money off of it.

    Reply
13. 

    @maybe800

    January 15, 2024 at 11:54 am

    Loved this!!!

    Reply
14. 

    @HenrikLantzHedstrom

    January 15, 2024 at 12:16 pm

    Hydropower is desecrating the environment. Don’t ever ever call that “clean”.

    Reply
15. 

    @johnbroadway4196

    January 15, 2024 at 12:24 pm

    Until You get both Lobbyists and investors together to pressure the Politician’s.
    It just won’t happen.

    Reply
16. 

    @rager4able

    January 15, 2024 at 1:26 pm

    TED = Woke Left Propaganda

    Reply
17. 

    @1967davidsrebrnik

    January 15, 2024 at 2:18 pm

    Those turbin are anything BUT clean energy.
    Too much wind not good, too little wind not good.
    It kills animals.
    Off shore , the water damage them.
    And when their life span is finished there’s no way to recycle the fans!
    Nuclear is the cleanest energy.

    Reply
18. 

    @dameanvil

    January 15, 2024 at 2:45 pm

    0:29 🌊 Cape Wind project aimed to install 130 offshore turbines for clean electricity in Massachusetts, inspiring a career in clean energy for the speaker.
    1:53 🚫 Regulations and lawsuits, designed to protect the environment, have hindered numerous clean energy projects in the US, creating delays and cancellations.
    2:22 🌐 Despite regulatory hurdles, alumni of Cape Wind are partnering with a global energy developer to proceed with the project off the coast of Massachusetts.
    3:00 📜 Government red tape and NIMBY opposition (Not In My Backyard) pose significant obstacles to building clean energy projects.
    4:02 🌱 ClearPath, a clean energy non-profit, advocates for policies to accelerate innovations in reducing global energy emissions.
    4:25 💡 To achieve net-zero emissions, the US must transform its power system, doubling its size and building 10,000 new clean energy projects by 2050.
    5:11 🚧 Well-intentioned regulations since the 1970s have created a bureaucratic apparatus that impedes clean energy projects’ progress in the US.
    7:07 🌍 Opposition to clean energy projects extends globally, with examples from Germany, Norway, and Australia.
    8:15 ⚖️ Balanced environmental regulation is crucial, but environmentalists must support a variety of clean energy projects and address visual concerns to overcome opposition.
    9:46 🔄 Modernizing supergrid operators’ processes and encouraging federal policymakers to reform national environmental laws can accelerate clean energy project timelines.
    11:26 🌎 To achieve net zero and tackle the climate challenge, a collective shift is needed towards saying “yes” to clean energy projects globally.

    Reply
19. 

    @reginalddyson9716

    January 15, 2024 at 4:14 pm

    I live for this day, my only question is what are the mitary implications. Can these things be bombed and leave us with nothing to peoduce energy?

    Reply
20. 

    @johnsutherland7561

    January 15, 2024 at 4:46 pm

    Wind turbines in the ocean are hugely costly. Solar and battery is the most efficient way

    Reply
21. 

    @MWhaleK

    January 15, 2024 at 5:01 pm

    Why would the private sector build anything like enough clean energy anything like fast enough when far more money can be made far easier serving Big Oil (which gets billions in government subsidies) and Big Coal? Without serious government intervention there is less than no incentive for the private sector to invest in clean energy.

    Reply
    • 

      @clehaxze

      January 16, 2024 at 12:42 am

      Because it’s possible to out complete coal and gas with clean energy and make money. For example, solar, including land cost, is dirt cheap. Current raw panel price is $0.22/W And ongoing cost is virtually zero as there’s no fuel.

      There’s the issue of intermittentcy and need of storage. But that cost is not paid by the solar plant operator. Some other company will show up to profit from the low/negative electricity price.

      Reply
22. 

    @craigbrowning9448

    January 15, 2024 at 5:17 pm

    Ironically I have seen some urbex videos of abandoned coal-fired power plants (built roughly in the 1920s), much of the architecture in these abandoned plants is surprisingly aesthetic.

    Reply
23. 

    @ganaspin

    January 15, 2024 at 5:57 pm

    Nuclear energy, for sure

    Reply
24. 

    @georgedavidson1221

    January 15, 2024 at 6:18 pm

    C02 does not cause global warming
    Watch. Lord Christopher Monckton. “. The Economics of Windmills “ The numbers are insane

    Reply
25. 

    @davidvalenzuela3144

    January 15, 2024 at 7:00 pm

    Yes but we also need to say no to re investment from these billionaire oil corps from digging their weasel fingers in the pot.. or anyone with Ill intent for that matter. It should be made illegal to f the people for profit. Really this time not just superficially or bought by money.

    Reply
26. 

    @Smokabowlski

    January 15, 2024 at 9:06 pm

    This ought to be entertaining… As long as the dangerous planet harming portion of the green energy happens in a different country…. it’s all good!!!

    Reply
27. 

    @Smokabowlski

    January 15, 2024 at 9:08 pm

    A I is dangerous
    censorship is dangerous
    …..
    No see doesn’t the first one. Sound more mysterious and easier to take?

    Reply
28. 

    @Smokabowlski

    January 15, 2024 at 9:12 pm

    It’s MAGA conspiracy theory to say every action has a reaction and an effect on the environment by changing the landscape of the environment … That is crazy talk!
    The votes were real.!!!!

    Reply
29. 

    @Smokabowlski

    January 15, 2024 at 9:17 pm

    What needs to be done is sucking money out of the big shots to spend on something that will get regulated and eliminated in the future because of its harm to the environment

    Reply
30. 

    @niccolom

    January 15, 2024 at 10:51 pm

    The government will never back off from the red tape, because they worry about re-election.

    The cause is that most of the people — and I mean more than 50% of the population — are still in denial of climate change.

    The fact of the matter is, you need to get more buy-in from the population before you can actually begin to protect the environment, because you are asking people — mostly deniers — to pay more money.

    Reply
31. 

    @furbabe

    January 15, 2024 at 11:47 pm

    So—— what is dirty energy?! Enough ideology. Clean energy is a manmade madness, like plastic, limited usefulness.

    Reply
32. 

    @user-su6qb6gx9h

    January 16, 2024 at 12:49 am

    Animals ingrediant = animals sexuallty = devill devill devill //all out out out ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

    Reply
33. 

    @OminousFilm

    January 16, 2024 at 10:55 am

    If so called science experts were so smart with space travel, air travel, car and truck, all these modern technology are also so destructive doesn’t equal out does it? Not so smart, pretty obvious to the 90’s kid generation but we had Captain Planet. Also we had common sense.

    Reply
34. 

    @darinherrick9224

    January 16, 2024 at 11:18 am

    Sounds like a time for some of those famous presidential orders.

    Reply
35. 

    @croaton07

    January 16, 2024 at 12:44 pm

    I guess we will all always ignore the infrastructure that will be required to fun on pure “clean” energy. How it can be overlooked so easily is mind boggling. It’s not rocket science, but it also doesn’t look as good budget wise if you include it.

    Reply
36. 

    @atenas80525

    January 16, 2024 at 1:03 pm

    “countless regulatory hurdles” – welcome to the world of small business – thank you very much

    Reply
37. 

    @atenas80525

    January 16, 2024 at 1:06 pm

    “world class process for getting in the way” – YEP

    Reply
38. 

    @atenas80525

    January 16, 2024 at 1:08 pm

    Killing small business economics, jobs, ingenuity, creativity and vibrance doesn’t make a whole lot of sense

    Reply
39. 

    @atenas80525

    January 16, 2024 at 1:13 pm

    All clean energy has a huge environmental impact – mining for copper, cobalt, lithium, millions of dead birds from wind turbines, PV and wind generators that can’t be recycled are a huge waste – sometimes toxic waste issue

    Reply
    • 

      @seanreynolds8567

      January 17, 2024 at 12:16 pm

      Right! He’s promoting a vision that only focuses on renewable energy and fails to acknowledge the wealth inequality it would create. It also ignores many climate change factors that don’t immediately fall under the category of green house gases. Just another main stream neo-liberal oversimplification of the climate crisis.

      Reply
40. 

    Maria Cortes

    January 16, 2024 at 3:08 pm

    Of course you have to planing where to put wind turbines, in Spain we have a serious problem with this, thousand of dead birds and bats, destroyed lands, people from towns without job…
    I hope this time you don’t delete my comment, this time I’m not going to put any link to spanish news in case this was the problem. I encourage you to inform yourself if you are interested in the topic. That’s what the speaker should have done before using Spain as an example.

    Reply
41. 

    @impuls60

    January 18, 2024 at 5:06 am

    I dont want to have my enviroment ruined by windmills or solar farms.

    Reply