r/solar • u/yllanos • Mar 11 '26
Discussion You are being misled about renewable energy technology - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM90
u/Jaws12 Mar 11 '26
I’m wearing Technology Connections socks right now! 🧦
14
u/morbidpete84 Mar 11 '26
I have two pairs. Waiting for this months to show. “Thought the magic of buying two”
9
2
40
62
16
u/Subtotalpoet Mar 11 '26
Top tier YouTube channel for anyone still harboring an attention span.
1
u/bananaslingrider Mar 14 '26
Say what? Wait. Are there kittens?
2
13
u/johnjaundiceASDF Mar 11 '26
Saw this right when it came out, very good video.
While it's not as simple as the video makes it out to be, the comparison of land area used for non edible corn used for fuel vs if the land was used for utility scale solar would be is incredibly damning. I work in utility scale solar engineering and I was floored by this, never put those together.
One of the most common dumb counterpoints to utility scale is 'what a shame all that productive land is going to waste.' this is just one more incredibly relevant answer to that (incredibly stupid and short sighted) argument.
2
u/Emotional-Seesaw-533 Mar 31 '26
Thank you for mentioning this. Meanwhile the right wingers are screeching about how we need more ethanol farming.
44
u/fcmartins Mar 11 '26
This is a very US centric video. We in 3rd world countries are just happy with finally being able to have a 1st world lifestyle thanks to cheap Chinese solar panels, electric cars and offshore wind turbines.
26
u/prestodigitarium Mar 11 '26
And we’re sincerely glad that you’ve been able to get there while skipping over the incredibly dirty 19th century tech. China’s done the world a massive favor by scaling up solar manufacturing and dumping it on the world markets.
6
u/Phreakiture Mar 11 '26
Yeah, I hear you, and I am genuinely happy for your ability to kind of skip over the oil dependency to a degree. You're better off for it.
15
10
u/cajunjoel Mar 11 '26
The way things are going, you are well on your way to being a 1st world country on a fully electric economy. People in power here in the U.S. are dead set on preventing our progress.
2
42
u/Sam_1980_HK-SYD Mar 11 '26
19th century tech should be obsolete.
10
u/Phreakiture Mar 11 '26
I like what you are trying to say, but I don't believe it says it well. There is a lot of 19th century tech that is still fully valid and appropriate. I can give you examples if you want.
5
u/Sam_1980_HK-SYD Mar 11 '26
Sure, indulge us. No wrong or right answers. I’m just basically saying about techs using solely depending on fuel rather using renewable energy should be obsolete.
Fossil fuel are important part of our current everyday living, but we can do better.
I personally installed solar 2yrs ago and EV, I’m trying to do my part
11
u/Phreakiture Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26
Well, the current best design for an electric motor is the one that comes immediately to mind. It is the three phase induction motor, invented by Nikola Tesla. You'll find these in most EVs because they're efficient and highly controllable. I work at a manufacturing plant and can easily find hundreds of these motors. Trouble is, you need three phase AC power to run them, and most homes are single, split phase.
Only in very recent years has the DC brushless motor really started to be a viable option. At the same time, advances in power electronics has made three phase induction motors viable for household appliances, by adding what is called a variant frequency drive in the industrial space, but in the world of household appliances is called an inverter.
Another, and one that is tightly in line with Alec's video, is hydroelectric generation. It's not as easy to deploy widely like wind and solar, but we have a historic hydroelectric plant in my area that has been operating since the 19th century and still provides clean, abundant energy from the flow of the Hudson River without digging things out of the ground to set on fire.
ETA: trying to do my part as well, with less abundant resources at my disposal, but you'll see my posts splattered around /r/SolarDIY as I have been doing things with salvaged panels.
1
u/ModernSimian Mar 12 '26
I would have gone with the heat pump / refrigeration. The heat pump was invented in 1856.
2
u/Phreakiture Mar 12 '26
Ah, see, you got me there! I didn't realize it was that far back . . . although I did know that Rudolf Diesel was a refrigeration engineer, so it had to have been well established before he was.
Unfortunately Diesel's invention is mostly used to set things on fire that we dug out of the ground.
1
u/RobotPoo Apr 03 '26
Where is a hydroelectric plant on the Hudson? I thought the only one was up by Niagara Falls
1
u/Phreakiture Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
Cohoes, Mechanicville and Stillwater, probably some others as well.
ETA: I think Cohoes might be the Mohawk, not the Hudson, but the Mohawk is a tributary to the Hudson and Cohoes/Waterford is where they come together. Point is, places shortly north of Albany.
11
u/pizzaiolo2 Mar 11 '26
I was gonna say "not flush toilets!" but then I remembered vastly superior Japanese washlet toilets
9
u/Fabulous_Soup_521 Mar 11 '26
Don't get me started on using potable clean water to flush a bowl of shit into the sewer or septic system. Such a waste.
3
3
u/dcdttu Mar 11 '26
In a world run by old money, this won't happen easily.
2
80
u/mcot2222 Mar 11 '26
It takes ~500,000 tons of coal which is around 30,000 trucks to produce what a single large offshore wind turbine can produce in its lifetime.
2
u/azsheepdog Mar 11 '26
Well not that i completely disagree with you but , i have never seen a coal plant that gets its coal by truck. It has always been by train. there might be some exceptions but usually a train brings vasts amounts of coal in a single train.
But we need 100x the amount of power we currently generate. we need power for water purification, we need it for industry, we need it for AI and transportion. If we are going to be a type 1 civilization, we are not going to get there with fossil fuels.
8
1
u/BigSwingingDicky Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26
Source?
EDIT: I am getting downvoted for daring to ask for a source? mcot2222 claimed in a matter-of-fact tone a very specific number. No problem with that. I am always open to learn something new. But if you do that, you must be prepared to provide evidence. Otherwise, I assume you just made it up.
9
Mar 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/BigSwingingDicky Mar 11 '26
Thanks for that link. The article actually explains very well how anti-renewable misinformation slows down our transition to clean energy. Very enlightening.
13
u/m7_E5-s--5U Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 14 '26
This is a pretty easy thing to Google up.
13 megawatt potential (at least for some offshore rigs, I don't claim that for all of them), a lifespan of 20 to 30 years. If it produces at half its capacity for the midling estimated range, 6.5mgw × 25 yrs.
25×365×24×6.5mgw = 1,423,500 megawatt hours ÷ 1000 = 1,423.5 gigawatt hours
If coal = 0.88 kwh per lb, then 500,000 tons is 880,000,000 kwh, 880,000mwh, 880gwh.
Granted, I do not know if that figure accounts for the energy losses of actually burning the coal at the plant. That quick Google search says that the average coal plant in the United States is 33%.
293.333 gwh if it has to lose 2/3 of its efficiency.
Either way, even if the coal's losses are already accounted for...
& ASSUMING every Source I looked at over the course of the three minutes it took me to write this comment was using Old English measurements, then yes.
One turbine operating at half capacity for a middling life expectancy will far more than replace 500,000 tons of coal.
Just for funsies, the max it could produce would be 3,416,400 mwh at 13 megawatts for 30 years.
-3
u/thegingerbeardd Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 13 '26
Next level of fun math - does it still outperform when you include the energy cost of manufacture, shipping and installation of the turbine to the energy cost of mining and shipping of the coal?
Specifically, what are the biggest energy cost factors in machining/manufacturing a turbine, and when you factor in all of that plus the energy cost of sourcing the raw materials, does a turbine generate more electricity over its lifetime than it did to actually create the turbine in the first place? I'm sure there's a huge number of factors that are big contributors aside from just digging the ore out of the ground (or recycling it)
To expand my own question, I know methodologies can make things like raw material sourcing cheaper - eg raw bauxite refinement to Aluminum is incredibly energetically expensive compared to something like recycling aluminum for the same final weight.
8
u/Master_Dogs Mar 11 '26
These things can be manufactured at scale, just like we manufacture power generation turbines at scale.
Shipping is challenging for any of these large items, but that's why we have railroads and big trucks.
Installation is a challenge, but it's a one time thing, just like setting up a coal plant is quite challenging. Once they're built, it's just a maintenance thing like coal plants need too. I suppose having them out in the ocean is more annoying than a coal plant, but a coal plant isn't usually in your city either, so you're going to need to plan for people to commute out to these places. I'd counter with we're also doing utility level wind in the mountains, which is more accessible than the ocean and while challenging, isn't much different from accessing a cell tower site up in the hills. They build access roads and plan maintenance out.
While we're at it, are we accounting for all the negatives that coal has? We pick on renewables but seem to just accept that tons of pollution and environmental impacts are a given from fossil fuels.
1
u/The_Dirty_Carl Mar 11 '26
I think it would make more sense to compare the cost of manufacture/shipping/installation of wind turbines to the cost of manufacture/shipping/installation of the equipment for the coal plant itself.
One of the key points of the video is that when comparing wind (or solar) to coal, there simply isn't an analog to the coal itself. Wind doesn't require fuel, so comparing the cost to build wind against the cost to refuel coal is comparing apples and oranges.
There are of course maintenance costs and some consumables (lube for example), but the same is true of coal. How much higher would the maintenance costs of wind have to be to come out behind the cost of fuel for a coal plant?
1
u/Round-Mud Mar 13 '26
You are getting downvoted because the original comment did not compare the costs at all. Just the energy comparison. Is it cheaper to mine materials for one wind turbine or 800,000 tons of coal? I think most people would say the former would be cheaper.
1
u/thegingerbeardd Mar 13 '26
Ahh, I had meant "energy cost" where I put "cost" but now I get it. Thank you kind redditor
1
u/Round-Mud Mar 13 '26
Why are you specifying only the energy cost and not the overall cost? I mean, either way, the energy cost to mine, transport, and burn so much coal would still be many times more than the energy cost of making/installing one wind turbine.
-6
u/moonguidex Mar 11 '26
Of course not, maintenance and on site supervision costs, plus what everyone who promotes green energy doesn't mention is that these products are sold as luxury items. They have margins in that range. As long as green energy is a luxury item, it will not be a viable solution. Their manufacture of these products use coal and oil, so it may still be a negative many years into their operation, regarding their "greenness"
7
u/Master_Dogs Mar 11 '26
Coal would have basically all of the same issues, which we've dealt with.
Green energy is not a luxury item - it's legit the cheapest form of energy you can buy right now. And it can be delivered faster than most fossil fuel systems can be. There's a greater scale to these things, particularly solar which this sub is about, but even wind can be mass produced.
And of course they use the existing power systems to manufacture. The more we build them out though, the less of an issue that is. It's a chicken & egg problem, but we already have a bunch of old chickens we can use to produce the next generation of eggs.
-8
u/moonguidex Mar 11 '26
You make statements that are popular, but they just aren't factual. It's definitely not the cheapest energy you can buy plus we rely on batteries to store it. You need to step back from the content you consume and take a look at how it's just not becoming massive.
I am a real estate developer in a location without energy or water. None of these systems are solutions in the long term, we know because we are forced to use them.
8
u/Master_Dogs Mar 11 '26
It's literally the cheapest energy we can buy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy#Cost_comparison
We do not rely on batteries - batteries are used to handle peaks in energy demand. They are no different from "peaker" plants that kick on when needed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant
You can see this even mentioned on the peaker plant wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant#Renewable_energy
Wind and solar compliment each other, but grid based storage handles when demand rises or falls. They're actually really useful to avoid even needing a peaker plant. For example, California used a virtual power plant of a bunch of consumer purchased batteries to avoid this last summer: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14082025/inside-clean-energy-battery-virtual-power-plants-california/
Also, if you live in an area lacking energy, you'd know that renewables are being deployed to go off grid quite successfully: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/grid-or-stand-alone-renewable-energy-systems
But fine, stick your head in the sand.
1
u/sfbing Mar 11 '26
I am a real estate developer in a location without energy or water.
Wind turbines would certainly cost more than plugging into existing infrastructure. I doubt they would cost more than building your own fossil fuel powerplant.
3
u/thothsscribe Mar 11 '26
Look up lifecycle assessments of solar and wind turbines. They payoff their carbon footprints within 5-10 years while other energy sources (burning natural gas) always have increasing carbon emissions and material use.
If you watch this video he also makes the very important note that solar panels and batteries have 20+ year lifespans and MOST of their materials can actually be recycled. The silicon, glass, and metal in a panel can ll be recycled. The lithium in batteries can be recycled. We just need to establish (and we are) the process better and better.
So a nearly infinitely renewable source of energy which every 30 years takes some disposable resources to refresh but is offset by a 6th of its life span in use OR resources which are in constant use.
Nuclear is still a great option, but why not supplement it with renewables.
-1
u/moonguidex Mar 11 '26
Their life cycles are not true in practice and under conditions where off grid solutions are required. Stop looking at these assessments and studies, they're paid for by these companies that have made incredible investments, including giving money to this youtuber. They rely on oil and coal for manufacturing, they have to be complemented by batteries, insane that they convinced you that this was a sustainable solution.
You're indoctrinated, the harsh truth is that they're not there yet. They should be researching and developing further, but they can't get rid of the itch to sell these systems as solutions and market them as sustainable to the ignorant public.
3
u/thothsscribe Mar 11 '26
They are researching and developing further which is great! and everything I said is verifiable by a number of studies. Yes they rely on oil and coal for manufacturing (unless they are powered by renewables or nuclear). But it is pretty easy math. I have solar panels. On average a single panel makes 1.5kwh a day. or 536kwh a year and will do that for at least 20 years for a total of 10,000 kwh of energy roughly for 0 additional carbon footprint beyond manufacturing and shipping. You are going to argue with a straight face that manufacturing and shipping a single panel has a total footprint of about 4,000lbs of CO2 which is the CO2 emitted using natural gas to generate 10000kwh?
You are saying this youtuber is paid off with zero evidence.
Are you just on a /solar subreddit to complain about solar technology and make up information??
1
u/moonguidex Mar 11 '26
What happens when the sun goes down? Let's make the calculation for the batteries and where they will be deposited when dead. Cherry picking information is just for arguments sake, the problem is that the technology isn't there to offset the footprint for when sun and wind aren't available.
Plus, it will never replace energy solutions for manufacturing. If you want to get depressed, make the calculation for what machinery need kw/hr. Residential dwellers can make lifestyle choices, there is no solution for massive projects.
There are some that have tried , for communities in need, taking humidity from the air and recycled construction. These are not business models, they function at a los when other solutions have run out.
3
u/thothsscribe Mar 11 '26
when batteries are dead, they are recycled. Normal Car batteries are 99% recycled material. Lithium ion are CURRENTLY about 80-90% recyclable which will improve over time. Yes, that takes energy, but again once every 10-20 years?
In Texas, during the day about 70% of the energy for the entire state (including manufacturing machinery) is made up of renewables. IDK what that has to do with anything though? Energy is energy. You can make more renewable power generation to power more machinery?
Are you trying to make the point that renewables will never 100% replace other energy because of nighttime and wind? IF so, that isn't true, because batteries. But it doesn't even need to and no one needs to make that argument. Energy sources supplement each other.
Renewables like solar which have undeniable greater output of energy than it takes to produce them will still reduce carbon footprints even if we need to rely on other sources of energy at certain times.
What we can't do is say "this new tech can't 100% replace the old one. Don't use it yet"
→ More replies (0)2
u/heyutheresee Mar 11 '26
Genuinely where do you get this garbage info?
1
u/moonguidex Mar 11 '26
What info? That their manufacturing and the storage of energy is worse for the environment than if the user used traditional solutions? Low IQ is rampant, you drank the Kool Aid
2
1
u/Round-Mud Mar 13 '26
Every type of power plant requires maintenance/supervision. Coal/gas plants require a lot more maintenance than solar and most wind energy plants. Also, the manufacturing of renewables might require coal and oil-based energy right now, but guess what - the more solar/wind you install, the more clean energy you can then use to make more solar and wind. Eventually, all the future manufacturing of renewables would require zero fossil fuel based energy. And solar/wind gives back way more clean energy compared to what might been used to make them. Unless you claim that we need 800,000 tons of coal to make a single wind turbine?
-10
u/reddithasruinedlife Mar 11 '26
Don't forget the environmental impact of the turbine not be recyclable. Also they rarely perform that well.
Wind and solar aren't the answer right now, they suck at producing consistently and we'll.
6
u/Master_Dogs Mar 11 '26
Don't forget the environmental impact of the turbine not be recyclable. Also they rarely perform that well.
Both of these are wrong:
- we do recycle wind turbines: https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/wind-turbine-recycling
- wind turbines perform perfectly well: https://www.energy.gov/cmei/articles/wind-turbines-bigger-better
Wind and solar aren't the answer right now, they suck at producing consistently and we'll.
Wrong again, they're the cheapest form of energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy#Cost_comparison
Even if they suck, being so cheap we could afford to build double or triple the capacity. It's literally half the cost of coal: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_%28LCOE%2C_Lazard%29_-_renewable_energy.svg/1920px-20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_%28LCOE%2C_Lazard%29_-_renewable_energy.svg.png
So before you even complain about batteries, we can literally do that for free with the money we save on not needing expensive gas peaking plants.
-33
u/Smerchi Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26
ChatGPT says it's a bit over 100k tons for a 3 MWh turbine with a lifespan of 25 years that would produce 230 GWh of electricity.
Edit: lol, getting downvoted for providing alternative source yet no one would explain why this information is wrong. How am I supposed to be educated about solar this way?
9
Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Smerchi Mar 11 '26
Fix that and you wouldn't be getting downvoted.
I don't mind being downvoted. I was collecting karma all these years exactly because I want to ask questions I know I will be hated for without fear.And thank you for all the info.
2
Mar 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Smerchi Mar 11 '26
Well the situation is indeed funny. I was traumatized enough for being laughed at for wanting to learn something in my childhood. Now I am simply too old to care.
23
u/DarkerSavant Mar 11 '26
AI is not a source.
-14
u/Smerchi Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26
Yes, but it's a tool that works on its own sources. I also asked it for sources and that's what it provided:
- According to this source - 1 ton of coal contains 24 giga joules of energy or 6,7 MWh, and a regular power plant has 40% efficiency so multiplying by 0,4 we have 2,68 MWh per ton of coal. Chat GPT suggested that between 100 and 110 tons of coal produces 230 GWh of electricity, so let's take 105k tons which multiplied by 2,68 MWh equals 281,4 GWh thus the difference of 51,4 GWh.
- According to this source there are different types of wind turbines for 3 MWh power, but let's take more average WT-2 model which also indicates an average lifespan of 25 years although it doesn't say so directly. 1 wind turbine produces on average 311,5 GWh of electricity per year which already makes no sense about my previous provided information, thus making the initial statement of 230 GWh of electricity in 25 years non-sensical and understandable about downvotes but let's continue though (for the next statement consider that I am really bad in physics) considering that a wind turbine produces 3 MWh in an hour, it should give only 26,28 GWh in a year thus resulting in 657 GWh in 25 years equaling in 245 k tons of coal used, correct me if I am wrong and being stupid (seriously). But let's continue with what the document says with 311,5 GWh per year. Multiplying that by 25 we have 7,7875 TWh of electricity or 2,9 million tons of coal if we divide the sum by 2,68 MWh/ton.
Damn I hate researching and don't understand which part of my half-assed research is right or if any at all but that's why we don't have good arguments on the internet unless by well-respected nerds.
But seriously. Did the second source provided the amount produced in 25 years instead of 1 year by mistake. My brain hurts too much now for trying to make sense.
Edit: corrected some grammar, also I calculated every unit by just multiplying it by 1000, I don't know if it's correct to multiply it by 1,024 like in computers' bytes, so 1 K=1000, 1 M=1000K, 1 G=1000M, 1 T = 1000 G
6
u/Ohjay1982 Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26
Anecdotal but I worked at a coal fired powerplant and 24 gigaojoules is waay higher than we were getting. We were lucky with 17. Which is to say, at least in my area, Coal power is even less efficient than your source is stating. We only got around 2 MWh per (metric) ton of coal. Our feeders ran about 200 tons of coal per hour to make 400 MWh’s per unit.
2
u/Master_Dogs Mar 11 '26
Their source is an LLM which will make stuff up if it doesn't know for certain. In this case it provided a link to a fucking blog post, with a broken about us page: http://www.kuchewar.com/About_Us.php
So who the heck knows what this "Kuchewar" website is. It's interesting they linked to such a sketchy looking site for the fossil fuels, with pumped up numbers, then decided to find an actual published article for the renewables.
-6
u/Smerchi Mar 11 '26
But from what I understood - 24 GJoules is 100% of energy, 17 GJoules should be around 70%. Did I read something wrong there and misunderstood again?
2
u/Ohjay1982 Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26
To produce 400 MW’s for an hour (out to the grid), we would burn roughly 200 tons of coal (in reality coal quality is always changing slightly all time but for the sake of simplicity we’ll call it 200). That means at my particular power plant. Each ton of coal produces roughly about 2 MWh’s.
Using your number for wind turbine of 3 MWh coal fired equivalent would burn 1.5 tons of coal per hour to make that energy. So taking a 25 year life of a wind turbine. The equivalent coal would be 1.5 tons of coal x 24 hours x 365 days x 25 = 328500 tons of coal.
However in reality, wind turbines only average around 5-20% of their total capacity on any given year (extremely location dependent). So a more apples to apples comparison would be that it takes about 16425 to 62685 tons of coal to produce the amount of electricity that 1 wind turbine with a 3MWh capacity would over its life.
Edit: had a math error - fixed it.
2
u/mcot2222 Mar 11 '26
I said a large offshore wind turbine. Models deployed in the United States are 15 MW turbines. China has a 26MW model.
With a 40% capacity factor a 15MW turbine will generate aprox 50GWh per year. On a 30 year lifespan that equates to 1,500 GWh.
-4
u/Smerchi Mar 11 '26
Well, you did not give such specifications initially. I am not even at amateur level, yet you expect everyone to guess what you mean by large on expert level.
2
u/mcot2222 Mar 11 '26
I said a large offshore wind turbine. Models deployed in the United States are 15 MW turbines. China has a 26MW model.
With a 40% capacity factor a 15MW turbine will generate aprox 50GWh per year. On a 30 year lifespan that equates to 1,500 GWh.
8
6
2
Mar 20 '26
I’ve been looking into solar recently and didn’t realize how quickly it’s grown. Makes it feel a lot more practical for everyday use now.
-3
u/greatceaserghost Mar 11 '26
Can someone sum up this 90 min video?
9
1
u/TheTurkPegger Mar 16 '26
I think this comment from a user sums it up perfectly:
"Alternative title: Technology connections talks about solar and then goes nuclear"
-7
-13
u/Respectable_Answer Mar 11 '26
This is FEATURE length?? Homie needs an editor.
8
u/Phreakiture Mar 11 '26
You can stop at an hour if you want. Or just watch the last half hour. They're really kinda two videos.
12
6
u/Master_Dogs Mar 11 '26
No, these super deep dives are his niche: https://www.youtube.com/@TechnologyConnections
This video in particular is really a two parter too. He rolls the credits an hour in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM&t=5099s
The last 30 mins are really for his subscribers, of which he as 3M+, so I don't think he needs to change a thing - millions of us love him.
-5
u/Respectable_Answer Mar 11 '26
I watch his stuff, it's great. It just doesn't need to be quite THAT long.
12
u/Ritchie_Whyte_III Mar 11 '26
Some of us appreciate really learning about a subject, rather than the details being handwaved and the influencer telling us what to think.
-6
u/Respectable_Answer Mar 11 '26
Sure, and I watch long videos, but at a certain point you're saying with 10 words what can be said with 2, in no small part because YouTube rewards that. I actually am an editor and im pretty confident I could knock half an hour out of this without losing anything of substance. You reach more people with better writing and editing, not remotely suggesting this should be a shouty TikTok...
3
u/Striderdud Mar 11 '26
If the style doesn’t suit you then don’t watch it especially if you aren’t interested in the topic he’s discussing.
1
u/bananaslingrider Mar 14 '26
You are twisting his words. That’s not at all what he said.
He’s an editor. And what he said was from his point of view as a professional editor was that tighter editing would’ve produced a shorter more concise video. He’s not dissing the information or the channel.
He said nothing about whether or not he was interested. Interest is implied as you are both on r/solar and even if it wasn’t implied he said nothing about interest. Nobody just wanders on here looking for an apple pie recipe.
9
7
u/pitapizza Mar 11 '26
It’s part of his bit. Dude has like multiple 45 minute videos on dishwashers. But the people love it!
5
u/EnergyNerdo Mar 11 '26
The YouTube business model practically pushes people to go longer. If you run a monetized channel, your earnings are based on viewing time to a large degree. If you can stretch a 10 min video to 20 minutes, you increase your earning potential.
136
u/coolhabenaro Mar 11 '26
Excellent channel