@@chrislambaa7586 show what? The life expectancy of people before widespread access to energy was ~30-40 years, most people died as infants. It is ashame that a lot of these countries don't get loans to buy fossil fuels and generators. Apparently the world bank values white lifes above the ones in Ethiopia, Buthan, etc. The reason these are 100% renewable, is simply because the energy consumption is close to none, because the living standards are very poor.
@KommuSoft First of all, why not just give them the compliment, when they deserve it, instead of trashing their nation. Secondly, wind and solar power are actually cheaper than fosile fuels. So if we are to borrow them money to give electricity to their people, why not give them the cleanest and cheapest option? And why not just give them the money, instead of borrowing it?
@@chrislambaa7586 : I don't trash, with the given resources they do quite well. My uncle was half a year a doctor in Rwanda, they do quite a lot with what is available. But there is not much available. Where do I say it is their fault? It is very sad that apparently white countries don't want to provide what is necessary such that African and Latin American countries can develop to the same standards of living. Secondly, wind and solar power are not cheaper: the first windmill was constructed in Iran in the 900s, but while the windmill has given some economical development, it did not increase human life expectancy that much. In the 1960s for example there were electric cars moving in Amsterdam, but they could reach approximately ~15 kilometers, that is very impressive. Current batteries requires lithium for example, that is mined in Chile and Bolivia, and often under harsh conditions: some people call it a next generation of colonialisme that we let people work in horrible circumstances for this. The main advantage of fuel is not the fact that it contains energy, mainly that it stores chemical energy in a compact form. Electric batteries also make cars more heavy, which means it requires more kinetic energy to move the car, but also results in more damage when you crash into a pedestrian with an electric car. Electric windmills also require insulator gasses, like sulfur hexafluoride. The leaks of SF6 in windmills in Europe cause approximately the same climate damage as 1.5 million combustion engine cars.
Yes, If I think about countries that do it well, I think about Paraguay, Ethiopia, Congo, Bhutan, etc. Everyone wants to migrate to these...
How nice of you to make such a comment.
It really shows your character and thanks for letting us know.
@@chrislambaa7586 show what? The life expectancy of people before widespread access to energy was ~30-40 years, most people died as infants. It is ashame that a lot of these countries don't get loans to buy fossil fuels and generators. Apparently the world bank values white lifes above the ones in Ethiopia, Buthan, etc. The reason these are 100% renewable, is simply because the energy consumption is close to none, because the living standards are very poor.
@KommuSoft First of all, why not just give them the compliment, when they deserve it, instead of trashing their nation.
Secondly, wind and solar power are actually cheaper than fosile fuels.
So if we are to borrow them money to give electricity to their people, why not give them the cleanest and cheapest option? And why not just give them the money, instead of borrowing it?
@@chrislambaa7586 : I don't trash, with the given resources they do quite well. My uncle was half a year a doctor in Rwanda, they do quite a lot with what is available. But there is not much available. Where do I say it is their fault? It is very sad that apparently white countries don't want to provide what is necessary such that African and Latin American countries can develop to the same standards of living.
Secondly, wind and solar power are not cheaper: the first windmill was constructed in Iran in the 900s, but while the windmill has given some economical development, it did not increase human life expectancy that much. In the 1960s for example there were electric cars moving in Amsterdam, but they could reach approximately ~15 kilometers, that is very impressive. Current batteries requires lithium for example, that is mined in Chile and Bolivia, and often under harsh conditions: some people call it a next generation of colonialisme that we let people work in horrible circumstances for this. The main advantage of fuel is not the fact that it contains energy, mainly that it stores chemical energy in a compact form. Electric batteries also make cars more heavy, which means it requires more kinetic energy to move the car, but also results in more damage when you crash into a pedestrian with an electric car. Electric windmills also require insulator gasses, like sulfur hexafluoride. The leaks of SF6 in windmills in Europe cause approximately the same climate damage as 1.5 million combustion engine cars.
lol ...