> A deeper dive: they aren't renewable, they're at best rebuildable

I find your YouTube video neither insightful nor informative. It reads as a string of desperate attempts at gotchas, only possible by repeatedly moving goalposts and misrepresenting positions, which are at best immaterial to the discussion.

I mean, the main point the YouTuber made against renewables is that different energy generation and distribution methods have different properties. Who exactly is expected to take seriously this blend of simplistic fatecious line of reasoning?

I recommend watching the full video. I don't think he's against renewables but trying to frame what they really are in a more realistic manner.

> (...) I don't think he's against renewables but (...)

It really makes no difference what's the youtuber's opinion on renewables. The point is that the arguments made by the YouTuber are completely pointless and meaningless, and completely miss the whole point -- and radical improvements -- made over the total dependency on fossil fuels in general and oil in particular.

This video is a classical case of something that's "not even wrong".

If anyone has any interest in the subject, they'd be better served by reading/watching anything else.

I assume we will continue to use renewable energy and mean what you describe.

Interesting to hear rebuild able haven't heard that before.