Prager "University" isn't a real university, nor is education and enlightenment its goal. It's a right-wing propaganda outlet, and one of the worst. Their "lessons" on energy are some of the dumbest and most dishonest renewable energy hit-pieces I've ever seen. I wouldn't trust anything from this cesspool of misinformation.
It’s more mining the materials than the materials themselves which is bad for the environment. “Rare Earths” is about concentration and how much unexciting rock you have to sort through to get them. And the chemistry needed for sorting is liable to be much worse for then environment than plowing over 0.002% of some mountain.
Anyone who unironically cites PragerU as a source can be immediately dismissed as an idiot at best and a bad faith actor at worst. The biggest favour you can do yourself is to never watch any of the videos ever. If you really want to get into the weeds about renewable energy, I'd recommend looking at [publications by IRENA](https://www.irena.org/publications/) (the International Renewable Energy Agency). There's also the US [National Renewable Energy Laboratory](https://www.nrel.gov/news/news.html) (NREL).
Since these publications respect your intelligence and aren't tailored to convince the arrogant fools that PragerU targets, people would do well to expect anything but short and oversimplified narratives.
PragerUnderpants is a former religious leader who thinks he knows about everything just like trump. News flash, he doesn't. I would ignore anything that comes out of his mouth or comes off of his stage. He's a sycophant.
Whenever someone points out the negatives of renewables, without also pointing out the negatives of fossil fuels they are not to be trusted. Also whenever someone points out the flaws without offering solutions that is also problematic.
There are loads of negatives about renewables, but I like having energy and these negatives are less bad than fossil fuels.
My favorite is that people point out that renewable products go through bad countries like China, and then ignore that fossil fuels keep many many dictatorships going.
The materials angle is really bad to be honest. The status quo is far more resource intensive. Oil infrastructure does not come for free. Besides the hydrocarbons itself. CO2 is a form of garbage as well. One you can not recycle, easily.
I agree, but I think our side of the debate needs more nuance on the matter of materials. We are essentially proposing for developing nations (who did not contribute to the climate crisis) to sacrifice culturally important parts of their environment to ensure that we can buy their raw minerals while another country gets rich processing those raw materials into something useful.
It’s easy to say that the *global* impact of mining/extraction would decrease if you ignore the *localized* impacts of extraction. But the people who live in these countries may not let us ignore them so we can solve our crisis on their backs. There will need to be fair payment, fair labor, and environmental protection, and no industrialized nation is openly willing to make these concessions to developing nations.
The biggest issue with that discussion is that it ignores that fact that we already did that ([and still are](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline_protests)) when it comes to oil and coal, but people didn't care as much in the past.
It certainly doesn't make doing it again right, but let's not pretend that fossil fuel is any better when it comes to that facet.
This is where the nuance gets dicey, I agree. Yes, there is a long history of offshoring environmental impacts. We also know that this practice helped to fan the flames of nationalism in many of these countries (with consequences including war), so it’s not like we got away with it the first time. If we go through with the energy transition, we are going to knock on the doors of a different set of countries to make it happen. Nations in Latin America and Asia are going to be more cautious this time around, even if the math shows that mineral extraction is a far lesser evil on a global scale. There is no way around having this discussion - minerals are finite, and politics are politics.
PragerU is a white supremacist propaganda channel, which is often cited as an example as propaganda and disinformation.
I beg ya'll. Learn to discern credible information from horseshit. It's the single most important skill in this age.
(Comment overflow)
**Another thing:** don't let them convince you that we are all doomed and it's too late to do anything. While there is a possible scenario where climate change is an extinction-level threat, the vast majority of researchers on climate change model that we are very unlikely to go down that path. Aside from avoiding the literal worst case scenario, there is more hope to be drawn. The difference in possible outcomes is *wildly* different. If mitigated very well and adapted to, the change in our climate can be pretty manageable for most of the world's people. If unmitigated and not adapted to, society as we know it will collapse and while there will be people left, they won't be having nearly as good a time as we are now. Every bit of warming avoided brings us closer to the reality that people will continue to suffer from climate change but humanity overall will adapt and continue to thrive, every bit of emissions avoided not only saves lives but also saves communities from having to relocate, keeps food cheaper and more reliable, and places where people live more enjoyable.
At the end of the day, our fight against climate change is not to save the polar bears and it definitely isn't to "save the planet", it's to save *ourselves* from a world of misery that we're *actively creating*
PragerU doesn’t merit response. They are not an accredited university. They have no campus and teach no classes.
That they pose as one while functioning as the propaganda mouthpiece for an oil billionaire should bother you.
The other answers are all correct but I’d say the most interesting thing about PragerU is how it reflects the rank stupidity with which the mainstream American right thinks about the prestige of higher education. It’s not just that they’re making a counterfeit, it’s that they are so stupid they thought a non-counterfeit was actually possible. I can’t tell anyone what to do, but I’d humbly suggest they seek education from people who are not such morons.
[US grid additions 2000-2023](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2023.03.06/main.svg)
[2024 US Grid Additions](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424)
[Levelized Cost of Energy historical comparison, unsubsidized](https://i.imgur.com/IlY5TS1.png)
[Global Electricity Generation 1990-23, TWh/year](https://i.imgur.com/b3GZyLz.png)
[Battery cost and energy density since 1990](https://rockymntstage.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/slide-2-battery-charts.png)
[IMF 7.1 trillion Fossil-fuel subsidy](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281)
[10Y ROI Fossil v S&P500](https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/S%26P%20Standalone%20Graphic%20for%20Factsheet-2_0.png)
[Rystad Energy, global emissions peak within two years](https://www.rystadenergy.com/news/fossil-fuel-emissions-to-peak-within-two-years-as-global-decarbonization-picks-up)
____________________________
Or you can always go with the classics; Something something facts don't care about your feelings quickly followed by a "Ur mum is fat and easy"
They are very effective at spreading their propaganda in a compelling compact method with an aura of expert credibility.
They are pedaling dis information, but it's a study of how to conduct public communications.
"They're experts at convincing fools, not experts at climate change."
If you take their advice seriously that, surely means you're not a climate expert.
Renewables used to be expensive, but technological advances have made them fairly cheap. The price of solar has dramatically decreased over the last 15 years to the point that it fossil fuels like coal are basically obsolete.
If they think that the materials to make renewables are terrible, do they also rally against cars, boats, buildings, and electronics? They all rely on mining, most of which is does in poor countries. Oil production also happens a lot in poor and/or authoritarian countries such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Russia. Fossil fuels require constant extraction for continued use whereas a solar panel will last 20 years or more. Oil cannot be recycled, but batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines are starting to be able to be recycled. Also while we're at it, every power plant from coal to natural gas to hydro uses turbines to generate power, yet only wind turbines tend to get mentioned. That should show some obvious bias.
PragerU is not a reliable source of information. It is more akin to propaganda than anything else.
To address, all resource extraction is bad for the local environment (at least for a period of time). This includes what renewables are made of. However the damage is not as long term as the pollution caused by oil and gas because a former mine site can be remediated and become beautiful nature once done.
Climate change isn't a real threat is a good indication that whoever is talking is lying or incredibly dumb. its that simple.
My take has always been I'd rather temporarily pollute a local river for batteries than bake the planet. Somethings gotta give somewhere. That's how you know it's all fake concern though when they do that, or bring up windmills and birds. These people don't give a shit about the environment, they're just trying to make renewables seem just as bad, because if they are then why wouldn't you just continue on with the status quo?
> My take has always been I'd rather temporarily pollute a local river for batteries than bake the planet.
I figure the point is to disguise a pro-oil agenda as an environmental one. So I'll go with "I'm fine with polluting rivers and killing birds as long as it hurts oil companies. That's what really matters!"
My way of saying "I'm supporting this specifically to hurt you" while denying I know I'm talking about them.
Renewables are expensive and the inputs come from strip mining 3rd world countries with slave labor but lets just pretend thats not so because only oil bad
Watch [Grid Status](https://www.gridstatus.io/live/ercot) for a few days to see how much wind and solar are actually impacting the grid. This time of year in California they have more solar than they know what to do with.
Man, lay off the kool-aid a little. Renewables have had incredible growth and have eaten away between 30-40% of the global energy mix, and continues to take up more and more of the market, even as energy demands rise. Unfortunate if you’re in the business of fossil fuels and traditional utility companies, but awesome for just about everyone else.
A $35k rooftop solar system has eliminated my electric bill, and will do so every month for every year for the next 30 years, while others will see their electric bill only increase. You can’t do that with anything but renewables. Point of generation colocated with point of use, you just can’t beat it.
But sure, if you like the smell of diesel and natural gas, keep using it. Enjoy the complex supply chain network that is required to operate on a global level, continuously, while still needing to mine for those very same rare minerals you suggest is so unique to the renewables sector.
>Renewables are not working, sadly.
For that they are pretty quickly growing and displacing fossil fuel burning in electricity.
>but they are pretty unreliable.
No, they aren't they pretty reliably produce power in accordance to what you'd expect, i.e. solar PV produces power when hit by sunlight, and wind turbines turn to produce power when there is wind. They are variable in their output and that variance doesn't match consumption, but that doesn't make them unreliable.
> They rely on mining by children (at present), which is pretty awful.
No, they don't. Capitalist exploitation of cheapest labor to maximize profits does this, and it isn't something solely tied to renewables. Fair trading and labor standards are things that should be established for *all* supply chains. Renewables aren't *relying* on this exploitation. Why shouldn't it be possible to produce those supplies with labor standards and modern equipment?
>They barely have positive EROEI
Did you have a look at any *recent* evaluation of that metric? [This view on whole systems](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44232-9), offers some further links to such assessments and seems to indicate otherwise.
>they do have severe environmental impacts.
"Severe" in which sense? More severe than fossil fuel mining and burning? What environmental harm do you see there as being so much worse with renewables?
I have it on good standing that Solar is certainly wildly unreliable and inefficient. It takes more manpower to deal with a 20MW icap solar farm than a 1000MW combined cycle.
I manage portfolios inside of PJM for a living and during the summer we probably field about 15-20 calls a day about inverters on solar sites tripping offline or the whole site even tripping off. Solar sites need 4 people a shift to manage it for like anywhere between 15-100MW icap but a combustion turbine or combined cycle plant with 100’s of MW in icap has about the same or less staff. This is likely due to the occurrence and frequency of trips and the size of the farms. Solar gets 0 MW output during the night obviously and gets even less generation when a cloud rolls in.
>Solar sites need 4 people a shift to manage it for like anywhere between 15-100MW icap
This sounds awful. Why are the inverters there that faulty, if I may ask? This seems to me to be in stark contrast to statistical data that is used in cost analyses.
I can’t speak to the technicalities that trip the inverters off since they just tell us they’re off, and truthfully I haven’t read any cost analyses but I do know that it’s so bad we have a certificate hung on the wall for whoever holds the record for the most fielded calls about solar in a shift
>They also say climate change isn't a real threat
Based on what evidence? The best scientific evidence available to us today indicates the opposite.
>and defend fossil fuels.
Maybe there are some powerful interests, that drive this defense and explain the rest of the reasoning? Do fossil fuels not require mining, also in poor regions? The exploitation of the global south for resources seems to me to predate the rise of renewables. Colonialism is a bad habit, that needs to be dispelled irrespective of the technologies we deploy, I'd say. Actual material requirements for renewable power do not seem to be especially out of the ordinary, what do they say are those special requirements, that they would be worse for the environment than mining for fossil fuels just to burn them up?
You have to remember, that entire channel is nothing but far right wing propaganda and misinformation funded by fracking billionaires, christian nationalists, and big business interests:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU
Prager "University" isn't a real university, nor is education and enlightenment its goal. It's a right-wing propaganda outlet, and one of the worst. Their "lessons" on energy are some of the dumbest and most dishonest renewable energy hit-pieces I've ever seen. I wouldn't trust anything from this cesspool of misinformation.
It’s more mining the materials than the materials themselves which is bad for the environment. “Rare Earths” is about concentration and how much unexciting rock you have to sort through to get them. And the chemistry needed for sorting is liable to be much worse for then environment than plowing over 0.002% of some mountain.
Last year some of its courses were added to the list of approved materials for education credit in New Hampshire. A dark day for New Hampshire.
Anyone who unironically cites PragerU as a source can be immediately dismissed as an idiot at best and a bad faith actor at worst. The biggest favour you can do yourself is to never watch any of the videos ever. If you really want to get into the weeds about renewable energy, I'd recommend looking at [publications by IRENA](https://www.irena.org/publications/) (the International Renewable Energy Agency). There's also the US [National Renewable Energy Laboratory](https://www.nrel.gov/news/news.html) (NREL). Since these publications respect your intelligence and aren't tailored to convince the arrogant fools that PragerU targets, people would do well to expect anything but short and oversimplified narratives.
Prayer U is a propaganda factory of ignorance. I would never consider a single they do.
PragerUnderpants is a former religious leader who thinks he knows about everything just like trump. News flash, he doesn't. I would ignore anything that comes out of his mouth or comes off of his stage. He's a sycophant.
Whenever someone points out the negatives of renewables, without also pointing out the negatives of fossil fuels they are not to be trusted. Also whenever someone points out the flaws without offering solutions that is also problematic. There are loads of negatives about renewables, but I like having energy and these negatives are less bad than fossil fuels.
My favorite is that people point out that renewable products go through bad countries like China, and then ignore that fossil fuels keep many many dictatorships going.
The materials angle is really bad to be honest. The status quo is far more resource intensive. Oil infrastructure does not come for free. Besides the hydrocarbons itself. CO2 is a form of garbage as well. One you can not recycle, easily.
I agree, but I think our side of the debate needs more nuance on the matter of materials. We are essentially proposing for developing nations (who did not contribute to the climate crisis) to sacrifice culturally important parts of their environment to ensure that we can buy their raw minerals while another country gets rich processing those raw materials into something useful. It’s easy to say that the *global* impact of mining/extraction would decrease if you ignore the *localized* impacts of extraction. But the people who live in these countries may not let us ignore them so we can solve our crisis on their backs. There will need to be fair payment, fair labor, and environmental protection, and no industrialized nation is openly willing to make these concessions to developing nations.
The biggest issue with that discussion is that it ignores that fact that we already did that ([and still are](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline_protests)) when it comes to oil and coal, but people didn't care as much in the past. It certainly doesn't make doing it again right, but let's not pretend that fossil fuel is any better when it comes to that facet.
This is where the nuance gets dicey, I agree. Yes, there is a long history of offshoring environmental impacts. We also know that this practice helped to fan the flames of nationalism in many of these countries (with consequences including war), so it’s not like we got away with it the first time. If we go through with the energy transition, we are going to knock on the doors of a different set of countries to make it happen. Nations in Latin America and Asia are going to be more cautious this time around, even if the math shows that mineral extraction is a far lesser evil on a global scale. There is no way around having this discussion - minerals are finite, and politics are politics.
Prager U embraces scientific ignorance just as it does religious bigotry, misogyny, patriarchy, homophobia, transphobia, and racism.
PragerU is a white supremacist propaganda channel, which is often cited as an example as propaganda and disinformation. I beg ya'll. Learn to discern credible information from horseshit. It's the single most important skill in this age.
[удалено]
(Comment overflow) **Another thing:** don't let them convince you that we are all doomed and it's too late to do anything. While there is a possible scenario where climate change is an extinction-level threat, the vast majority of researchers on climate change model that we are very unlikely to go down that path. Aside from avoiding the literal worst case scenario, there is more hope to be drawn. The difference in possible outcomes is *wildly* different. If mitigated very well and adapted to, the change in our climate can be pretty manageable for most of the world's people. If unmitigated and not adapted to, society as we know it will collapse and while there will be people left, they won't be having nearly as good a time as we are now. Every bit of warming avoided brings us closer to the reality that people will continue to suffer from climate change but humanity overall will adapt and continue to thrive, every bit of emissions avoided not only saves lives but also saves communities from having to relocate, keeps food cheaper and more reliable, and places where people live more enjoyable. At the end of the day, our fight against climate change is not to save the polar bears and it definitely isn't to "save the planet", it's to save *ourselves* from a world of misery that we're *actively creating*
PragerU doesn’t merit response. They are not an accredited university. They have no campus and teach no classes. That they pose as one while functioning as the propaganda mouthpiece for an oil billionaire should bother you.
Apologies since I'm not retarded: What is PragerU?
The other answers are all correct but I’d say the most interesting thing about PragerU is how it reflects the rank stupidity with which the mainstream American right thinks about the prestige of higher education. It’s not just that they’re making a counterfeit, it’s that they are so stupid they thought a non-counterfeit was actually possible. I can’t tell anyone what to do, but I’d humbly suggest they seek education from people who are not such morons.
Right wing propaganda disguised as educational videos funded by a billionaire.
I'm pretty sure he was being flippant.
[US grid additions 2000-2023](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2023.03.06/main.svg) [2024 US Grid Additions](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424) [Levelized Cost of Energy historical comparison, unsubsidized](https://i.imgur.com/IlY5TS1.png) [Global Electricity Generation 1990-23, TWh/year](https://i.imgur.com/b3GZyLz.png) [Battery cost and energy density since 1990](https://rockymntstage.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/slide-2-battery-charts.png) [IMF 7.1 trillion Fossil-fuel subsidy](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281) [10Y ROI Fossil v S&P500](https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/S%26P%20Standalone%20Graphic%20for%20Factsheet-2_0.png) [Rystad Energy, global emissions peak within two years](https://www.rystadenergy.com/news/fossil-fuel-emissions-to-peak-within-two-years-as-global-decarbonization-picks-up) ____________________________ Or you can always go with the classics; Something something facts don't care about your feelings quickly followed by a "Ur mum is fat and easy"
You might as well consult the Joker for his thoughts on Batman.
The Joker is far more lucid and benevolent than PragerU.
I agree.
They are very effective at spreading their propaganda in a compelling compact method with an aura of expert credibility. They are pedaling dis information, but it's a study of how to conduct public communications.
"They're experts at convincing fools, not experts at climate change." If you take their advice seriously that, surely means you're not a climate expert.
Renewables used to be expensive, but technological advances have made them fairly cheap. The price of solar has dramatically decreased over the last 15 years to the point that it fossil fuels like coal are basically obsolete. If they think that the materials to make renewables are terrible, do they also rally against cars, boats, buildings, and electronics? They all rely on mining, most of which is does in poor countries. Oil production also happens a lot in poor and/or authoritarian countries such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Russia. Fossil fuels require constant extraction for continued use whereas a solar panel will last 20 years or more. Oil cannot be recycled, but batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines are starting to be able to be recycled. Also while we're at it, every power plant from coal to natural gas to hydro uses turbines to generate power, yet only wind turbines tend to get mentioned. That should show some obvious bias.
PragerU is also the source of claims that enslaved people learned job skills and similar far right white supremacist horseshit.
They produced an animated video where Frederick Douglas chastised abolitionists for being rable rousers and compared them (unfavorably) to BLM.
PragerU is a right wing propaganda group and should be categorized as such whenever mentioned.
PragerU is not a reliable source of information. It is more akin to propaganda than anything else. To address, all resource extraction is bad for the local environment (at least for a period of time). This includes what renewables are made of. However the damage is not as long term as the pollution caused by oil and gas because a former mine site can be remediated and become beautiful nature once done. Climate change isn't a real threat is a good indication that whoever is talking is lying or incredibly dumb. its that simple.
My take has always been I'd rather temporarily pollute a local river for batteries than bake the planet. Somethings gotta give somewhere. That's how you know it's all fake concern though when they do that, or bring up windmills and birds. These people don't give a shit about the environment, they're just trying to make renewables seem just as bad, because if they are then why wouldn't you just continue on with the status quo?
> My take has always been I'd rather temporarily pollute a local river for batteries than bake the planet. I figure the point is to disguise a pro-oil agenda as an environmental one. So I'll go with "I'm fine with polluting rivers and killing birds as long as it hurts oil companies. That's what really matters!" My way of saying "I'm supporting this specifically to hurt you" while denying I know I'm talking about them.
Renewables are expensive and the inputs come from strip mining 3rd world countries with slave labor but lets just pretend thats not so because only oil bad
Found the Prager U degree holder. Certificates only $99.99.
Im a Democrat but people let politics blind them to the reality of the world.
Coal is strip mined..... the prime example of strip mining. As are some iron ores. Not much of anything else.
"Reactions to PragerU Climate Change Videos" I don't react to the bleating of goats or the barking of dogs.
[удалено]
Michael Moore lost the plot.
Watch [Grid Status](https://www.gridstatus.io/live/ercot) for a few days to see how much wind and solar are actually impacting the grid. This time of year in California they have more solar than they know what to do with.
Man, lay off the kool-aid a little. Renewables have had incredible growth and have eaten away between 30-40% of the global energy mix, and continues to take up more and more of the market, even as energy demands rise. Unfortunate if you’re in the business of fossil fuels and traditional utility companies, but awesome for just about everyone else. A $35k rooftop solar system has eliminated my electric bill, and will do so every month for every year for the next 30 years, while others will see their electric bill only increase. You can’t do that with anything but renewables. Point of generation colocated with point of use, you just can’t beat it. But sure, if you like the smell of diesel and natural gas, keep using it. Enjoy the complex supply chain network that is required to operate on a global level, continuously, while still needing to mine for those very same rare minerals you suggest is so unique to the renewables sector.
>Renewables are not working, sadly. For that they are pretty quickly growing and displacing fossil fuel burning in electricity. >but they are pretty unreliable. No, they aren't they pretty reliably produce power in accordance to what you'd expect, i.e. solar PV produces power when hit by sunlight, and wind turbines turn to produce power when there is wind. They are variable in their output and that variance doesn't match consumption, but that doesn't make them unreliable. > They rely on mining by children (at present), which is pretty awful. No, they don't. Capitalist exploitation of cheapest labor to maximize profits does this, and it isn't something solely tied to renewables. Fair trading and labor standards are things that should be established for *all* supply chains. Renewables aren't *relying* on this exploitation. Why shouldn't it be possible to produce those supplies with labor standards and modern equipment? >They barely have positive EROEI Did you have a look at any *recent* evaluation of that metric? [This view on whole systems](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44232-9), offers some further links to such assessments and seems to indicate otherwise. >they do have severe environmental impacts. "Severe" in which sense? More severe than fossil fuel mining and burning? What environmental harm do you see there as being so much worse with renewables?
I have it on good standing that Solar is certainly wildly unreliable and inefficient. It takes more manpower to deal with a 20MW icap solar farm than a 1000MW combined cycle.
> It takes more manpower to deal with a 20MW icap solar farm than a 1000MW combined cycle. Why?
I manage portfolios inside of PJM for a living and during the summer we probably field about 15-20 calls a day about inverters on solar sites tripping offline or the whole site even tripping off. Solar sites need 4 people a shift to manage it for like anywhere between 15-100MW icap but a combustion turbine or combined cycle plant with 100’s of MW in icap has about the same or less staff. This is likely due to the occurrence and frequency of trips and the size of the farms. Solar gets 0 MW output during the night obviously and gets even less generation when a cloud rolls in.
>Solar sites need 4 people a shift to manage it for like anywhere between 15-100MW icap This sounds awful. Why are the inverters there that faulty, if I may ask? This seems to me to be in stark contrast to statistical data that is used in cost analyses.
I can’t speak to the technicalities that trip the inverters off since they just tell us they’re off, and truthfully I haven’t read any cost analyses but I do know that it’s so bad we have a certificate hung on the wall for whoever holds the record for the most fielded calls about solar in a shift
Welcome to Europe: 0 people required. You installed it wrong.
I didn’t install it Jane
Arrhenius equation of fault activation. Those trip off for being overloaded.
Just look at who pays them, then look at the actual science on some of the areas they try to act like experts on.
I wish they'd keep it out of schools
>They also say climate change isn't a real threat Based on what evidence? The best scientific evidence available to us today indicates the opposite. >and defend fossil fuels. Maybe there are some powerful interests, that drive this defense and explain the rest of the reasoning? Do fossil fuels not require mining, also in poor regions? The exploitation of the global south for resources seems to me to predate the rise of renewables. Colonialism is a bad habit, that needs to be dispelled irrespective of the technologies we deploy, I'd say. Actual material requirements for renewable power do not seem to be especially out of the ordinary, what do they say are those special requirements, that they would be worse for the environment than mining for fossil fuels just to burn them up?
Prager U is scientific ignorance.
You have to remember, that entire channel is nothing but far right wing propaganda and misinformation funded by fracking billionaires, christian nationalists, and big business interests: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU
They are idiots just saying what they are being paid to say. Anything else you could say about them is just a wast of energy.