> 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?