It helps if you understand the true aim. It is not ‘clean’ energy, it is no energy. Environmentalism is a misanthropic, Malthusian project to cull the number of Humans on Planet Earth, regress them to a pre-industrial, simple, subsistance agrarian society so as not to ‘use up’ the ‘Earth’s resources’ - there being a no more stupid notion than the Earth having resources, resources being the invention of Mankind, and only of use and value to him. Coal has no value until Man invents a use for it. And that means we cannot know what resources we currently cannot imagine will be invented in the future, short, medium, long term.
It also helps if you view the climate change evil, in the same light as CoVid Fakedemic evil: about science, not bumbling idiots over-reaching, but about a globally coordinated effort to place power and control over the masses into the hands of a few.
I think this, to a large degree, is what it's all about. That and a whole lot of grifting along the way. The people (not really sure these are humans)behind this are seriously mentally deranged sociopaths, obsessed with the power and control their ill gotten gains buy for them. I think that the prospect of killing of, by a myriad of means, of at least 3/4s of the world's population excites them in ways that make Jeffery Dahmer look like a choir boy. But when you cannot even get people to understand that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, but vital for life as we know it...Interesting times, indeed.
I thinks it’s simpler than this depopulation theory. Dollar bills. These “clean energy” plans all line the pockets of politicos and there cronies. It’s a grift plain and simple.
They are doing a lot more than "clean energy". Destroying agriculture, our monetary system, our healthcare system, our education system, corrupting our politicians, law enforcement & the military. In any case they print money out of nothing so the profits stuffed into the pockets of their minions are a minor consideration.
It's the driving delusion behind the banning of fossil fuels and travel by any sort of motorized vehicle. Carbon footprints? Carbon offsets? Gulped down like beer at a frat keg party. And this in spite of ice cores that unequivocally indicate that historically, measurable increases in world temps were FOLLOWED, NOT PRECEDED, by increased CO2. Facts mean nothing to the wacked out zealots and mentally deficient masses on the left.
Yes, this puts the entire premise of "CO2 Bad" into questionable light. How is it that even the universities are blindly genuflecting to such a shaky premise? Everywhere you turn, now, it's all about Carbon Zero bla-bla-bla. What does that even mean? Is no-one considering, just for a pico-nanosecond, what all of the carbon "eliminating" measures could mean for us in unintended consequences?
This is a little silly. Every living creature depends on *resources* and spends much of its working day locating and using them.
We get a little over-wrapped-up in the invention of words to signify real things and then, because we've introduced symbolism, we get detached from the reality.
Ask honeybees and beavers about resources. They understand 'em quite well.
Really? Did Stone Age Man know oil was a resource? Coal? American Indians knew about oil as it bubbled up out of the ground, but it wasn’t a resource. You make my point, many people have no understanding of what a resource is. Coal, gas, oil were not resources until the ideas of Mankind made them so.
‘… in the invention of words to signify real things…’
Of course stone age man knew that trees/wood (and probably coal, too), water, animal skins -- and many other things -- were useful "Resources." The fact that others may be found does nothing to change the definition of "Resource"; it is merely something that helps a person or organization function effectively. (Look it up.) ...and yes, physical materials have constrained supplies.
Environmentalism has legitimate concerns (you want glyphosate in your tap water?); the fraud you complain about is better termed "Climate alarmism." Let's keep our lexicon straight, so our goals remain clear.
You are confusing materials with resources. By your definition everything is a resource, including sewage and landfills/garbage dumps. Materials that have significant value to humans are what you call resources. And that is entirely dependent on the technology of the day and the socio-economic situation. Sea turtle shells were once a valuable resource, which decimated their numbers, until it was replaced with plastic made from oil.
Yes everything has a constrained supply, including time & space. The only legitimate question is whether that constraint has significant impact on the economics of their use. And numerically how significant that is. Generally speaking the economic significance is largely determined by the available tech of the day, not the availability of the resource.
Petroleum, from "Petra Oleum" meaning "oil from Petra" (the ancient city, or "oil from rock") has been known and used this side the Atlantic since donkey's years BC.
If you look it up, you'll learn that basic bitumen was used in the construction of boats 6 000 years ago, as just one example of what the people then did with it. Itwas commonly called naphta in historic time.
Not the way we use it today of course, but it was neither mysterious nor unknown.
The "people in historical times were ignorant"-fallacy really needs to be taken out back and shot.
Yep. Not sure if 9 000 BC qualifies as Stone Age everywhere on the globe, but it was about then that people noticed that the orange-y stuff pouring out from certain rocks (possibly because those rocks had been used in fireplaces) was hard, sharp and rather useful once it cooled.
As I put in higher up in the thread, that people in historical times were ignorant is an idea that needs to die.
I agree but what is puzzling is why didn’t they just let rona do the culling? If in fact rona was as deadly as they said? Or is the jab poison doing the culling via myocarditis and other maladies as the rona is no more potent than the season flu?
From all the reports I read, it appears that the major cause of C-19 deaths was the "treatment". I had it, and it was like a normal nasty case of flu. I self treated. And I am 78, have a heart condition and am subject to small strokes. If what they claimed about C-19 was true, I would not be alive to write this. However, since the vax, other health problems, problematic problems, have arisen. The bottom line is that They are at war with us, and so far, we are NOT winning.
COVID is not a "novel condition. It's a variant of SARS, which is a cardiorespiratory virus that emerged 20 years ago. I treated patients with SARS in a couple ICU wards. It's not a common condition. It mostly is contracted by patients ALREADY in the hospital, primarily bc they have depleted immune systems.
Moreover, the vaccines for SARS failed the animal trials. So it's incredulous that a vaccine would be deemed "safe for humans in 2021, as they skipped the animal trials.
I've conducted my own Research in a hospital in Canada. Your proposed study has to pass APPROVAL from a regulated ethical board prior to commencement of the research project. Evidently, the "COVID experiment" never received approval from an ethical board.
Hence, the mid and LONG-TERM adverse effects associated with the Experimental drug are catastrophic.
I disagree with the regression to agrarian society part. Their concept for the future is manufactured "food": chemicals and GMOs. Growing food yourself would probably become crimes against the environment.
yes, covid used all the dishonest tricks of modeling and existential fear hysteria from the AGW grift. i suspect they borrowed them directly from the same propogandists and modelers.
but, ironically, it may be what winds up saving us from the AGW gang.
because unlike climate, where by the time your model is shown to be junk a decade from now, you have 3 new models, 5 new song and dances, and and everyone forgot about the old one, covid was FAST.
you could see it all fail in real time.
you could see what clowns the "experts" were, how naked the grift was, how little they knew and how much they lied.
the trick was too obvious.
and now everyone is awake and aware. trust in experts has plummeted and willingness to accept massive impositions to fight made up threats is on the wane.
i think the global grabbers blew it and wised up the audience.
and i think this is how we wriggle free from them.
I'm torn. I think you bring up a point which is of most concern to me; short memories.
Do you think the average Joe will recognize 5 years from now that they are watching the worlds longest instant replay, while the goalposts and the end zone move faster than their attention?
hard to say, but i think the overton window has shifted dramatically and a lot of folks in the "middle" now find it OK and socially acceptable/laudable to distrust government and grand government edict.
"the experts" took a pretty severe drubbing and the fact that governments are trying to accelerate their plans into this newfound lack of credibility is going to break them. they are driving right at a cliff and don't seem to know it.
All my liberal friends are as Mr. Gardner states. They will not talk or discuss it, do not want to see anything on the subject. They believe the vaccine doesn't work but it saved them from having a bad covid outcome.
I want to believe the Bad Cat prediction is in our future.
I saw a young black man alone in a plastic mask shoveling snow here in Detroit. I think masks have morphed into polyvalently symbolic terror management talismans. I would think being young would make it worse, since the firehouse of apocalyptic schist on tv and social media, on many levels, is unavoidable. How do you go on living if the world is descending into apocalypses on so many fronts?
"They believe the vaccine doesn't work but it saved them from having a bad covid outcome."
I think this is very well put. It seems a very fitting way to describe those of my siblings who took the shots. And by extension, I expect this to be pretty widespread held position.
Same. I've tried really hard, and gotten a few to admit that masking kindergartners was maybe a bit of an overreaction. Maybe. Beyond that, the narrative that "Covid killed a million Americans and would have killed a million more if not for our miracle-weaving Scientists" is firmly lodged in their psyches. It is a pillar of faith.
Likewise with our response to climate change. California will slide into the Pacific before its Democrat voters opt for rational energy policy.
Do you think the average 28 year old couple who put their kids in school, 5 years from now, will even know that the c19 non-vaxx vaxx is on the schedule?
I don't think so. I think little "Tommy" is getting his shot 90% of the time.
It'll be something banking related. Controlling the money will be the most important. Locking down bank accounts will be just as easy as locking down people.
Maybe easier. Locking down bank accounts which will mean controlling what you can spend monthly and what you can spend it on will also effectively lock down people meaning amount of travel and distance, how much groceries and what groceries they may buy and consume = their 15 minute city dystopian dream. Meanwhile "our betters the, important people" can continue to fly their private jets to Davos or Beijing or wherever they take their holidays. Throttling us so that there is more for them.
A CBDC and/or other Big Brother expanded economic control may lie in our futures. But I'm amused when folks like you think that no alternatives exist. There always has been, and I propose, always will be a black market, an underground economy, or whatever you'd like to call it. It's always less efficient than electronic finance, yet there's a certain charm in trading in gold or silver coins, cigarettes, nylon stockings (WW II favorites) or even babysitting your neighbor's kids. It's damned hard for the world-improvers to trace, much less control. In fact, that's probably its key feature. Yes, doing so will be unlawful to trade on the unofficial economy (or in some cases, already is!) but consider: You are going to be labeled a criminal for many everyday activities, or even your personal beliefs. If your bank balance can be frozen at the whim of a bureacrat, or worse perhaps by some unaccountable corporation, why should you lose any sleep over doing some off-the-record shopping wiht old silver coins, or whatever?
In the present world, the consumer has great convenience: either in person at myriad stores, or order an infinite range of products via your mobile or PC and it's delivered to your home. What could be easier? Ah, but there's a downside: electronci records of all your activity and the potential for your being "cancelled" for reasons justifiable (you're a deadbeat) or questionable (your beleifs are "incorrect.") But consider the fact that we arleady live ina world where government decrees you cannot buy certain goods or services, or even when legal, they are restricted. E.g. Amazon bans many books and other item sales because they don't fit "community standards," not because they're actually illegal.
Boy you would think there would be some sort of "revolution" if that happened, but I suspect there's a decent chance you're right, given the tools they already have and humanities reaction to the low bar set by c19.
I accidentally had NPR on a few years back and they were talking about a "nudge" needed to control thermostats that are networked. It's not equity for you to have the temp higher than your neighbor!
The shortage is what they are already creating to build demand for this.
Exactly! Just like defining the amorphous "vulnerable" or from/with c19 deaths.
Oldest trick in book; ambiguous definitions/understanding/reference points with no defined objectives that can be modulated without much notice (both senses of word).
This is from puc.texas.gov "In the future, the meters will be able to communicate with programmable devices (like your air conditioner or dishwasher) through a Home Area Network (HAN) module to monitor and control electricity consumption." Edit: This is probably meant for consumer, as we use on online program to set the thermostat. From CPS energy "...your thermostat will turn on and off at a slightly higher thermostat setting,...." When ours was installed we took part in energy saving options that would adjust our thermostat at peak hours. So instead of the home temp being 80 degrees it would rise to the energy saving default. We still had ability to override.
Australia is jumping into the CCP power fix, stupidity at its best, where does the money go... to China...
we export coal but try these stupid ideas.. the coal is going to be burnt in Indonesia India etc producing cheap energy for them but we can’t use it.. the most stupid garbage.. one look at these wind farms and you know there’s a massive carbon input just getting them there, inefficiency power and no doubt they won’t last..
But people don’t look past their emotions and media indoctrination..
Is Carbon Dioxide even the enemy we're told it is? There's a lot of debate around this. I'm starting to think it's all just another lie positioned to get the masses to support government decisions to invest in corporations who create the "solution" (remember the pandemic anyone?) It's hard to see how unsustainable and environmentally damaging solutions like wind turbines help anyone but those invested. Somebodies making bank!
It's as if the world has forgotten that plants breathe in CO2 and create oxygen, while humans exhale CO2 to the benefit of plant life. No one went to science class in sixth grade? What will happen to the planet if the idiots running the circus actually do lower CO2 below the sustainability level of plant life?
Ah yes, agriculture will be stunted and humans will starve.
Exactly! As I understand it, it's probably not even possible to attain a net zero position and even if we did life still produces it at varying levels pending what cycle the earth is currently in and it would have little effect in the big scheme of things. It's just another fear campaign to help channel the money to a targeted destination.
It appears to be an excuse. Maybe a Chinese psyops so they get all the energy dense resources. See my post above with the ourworldindata links... and keep in mind China is buying EU and USA coal on the cheap since we aren't using what we mine. It is true that emissions are down in the USA and EU.... but it is increasing through the roof in China. The elite's reply to that is shut up about China. You filthy people need to emmit even less. 😆 I am afraid our rulers have sold us out
CO2 increase actually leads to greening of the earth - deserts shrink as more vegetation grows. The greentards never ask why they burn wood, etc to increase CO2 levels in actual greenhouses to boost production.
CO2 is essential to life on earth. They may as well demonize oxygen. The more we have, the greener the planet. It doesn’t cause warming, it increases in response to warming. But this whole regime depends on scientific illiteracy.
The "windmill on fire" line got me. One near my childhood hometown in New York State, 2 hours from me, caught on fire just a few days ago. They're all over the place in Western NY. Beautiful area turning into ugly landscaping.
It's happening all over Britain. Our once beautiful hills are defaced by ugly wind turbines which kill birds 2herever you look. They're even sticking them in the sea. They'll all be rusting away everywhere in a few years time when they wear out.
@Cary- they're trying to stick them in the sea off the east coast of the US as well. We've had many dead whales wash up on the shores because of their research.
Thank you! I'm going to forward this to a conservative online newspaper in CA so they can help publicize this info. Plus, I kinda like seeing bureaucrats fall on their sword. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0GGndnnOqw Here's to you, governor hair gel.
I porpose we've overlooked the main reason for so-called "green" energy: money (greed.) St. Paul famously writes that the love of money is the root of all evil. Maybe not ALL evil, but surely a large fraction thereof. One of the oldest rules for investigators, "Follow the money," will answer 99% of your questions, 99% of the time. This isn't to claim that greed is man's sole motivation: Fanatics occasionally willingly (?) kill themself and victims because, presumably, they are acting for some higher ideal. Or perhaps they're just mad. On a happier and much less newsworthy note, millions of volunteers donate money and time in mostly invisible charitable activities, whether it's enabling the local Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, working the ghetto soup kitchen, ladies' sewing circles who knit woolen caps for soldiers in cold climates, and so on.
But the skeptic will never go far wrong in asking "Who profits?" when looking at nearly any individual and, especially, group activity. Often there is a public relations effort, a cover story if you like, to put a happy face on what is at best a crass money making motive, at worst sometimes downright harmful intent or "unavoidable" collateral damage -- e.g. even the most unprincipled capitalist doesn't deliberately set out to sicken the peasantry or lay waste the land; those are unfortunate side effects of his main goal, wealth extraction. In fairness, by no means am I saying that a profit motive is illicit; my point is that there is a line that can be crossed, from honest profit to negligence, to deliberate deception and manipulation and -- sometimes -- coercion. The latter is especially likely whenever governement is invovled to any degree.
Applied to the present topic, for so-called "green" the greed aspect almost always returns to direct or indirect government subsidy. The super-rich profit (e.g. an Elon Musk), the upper middle class (e.g. tax and other subsidy to buy that EV or put solar panels on one's roof), but few of these make economic sense. If it were rational to do those things, in general people would choose them without a stick or a carrot from government.
Whether it's "climate change" or the Covid-19 "pandemic," alleged racial injustice or any of a thousand other burning issues, the observant citizen will note that the "crisis" nearly always is presented as dire, that we must Do Something Right Now!!! And that We're All Gonna Die, or suffer some other calamity if we don't urgently act. May I suggest that to act in haste is nearly always the worst decision? And, unfortuantely, all too often there are "helpful" people looking to stampede the sheep in highly profitable ways. Yes, sometimes the house is afire and one should get the hell out. But really, we should start to ask questions when the fire department was already waiting outside and a kind gentleman was escorting us into the waiting cattle car, handing us a brouchure about our new housing options.
It seems as though the (Substack) world has become divided between "Drill, baby drill" folks who love their fossil fuels with a side dish of nuclear and the borderline-demented "renewable" folks who insist we can solar panel and windmill our way out of our current energy consumption addiction which requires that someone, somewhere suffers for our energy use, whether it's polluted water supplies from oil drilling and fracking or the mess that lithium mining for batteries leaves behind...and countless other examples.
I don't have the schooling, nor the credentials, nor the ability with the English language that the author of this post and many of the commentators have, so have at me.
I have zero knowledge of chemistry, physics, geology or anything remotely related to energy production or consumption or any related field.
But....
Three times in my life, completely unsolicited, completely unexpected I have found myself in conversations which, to me, are strong enough signals to indicate that all of the really, really smart people, not just here on Substack or Quora, but also in Silicon Valley (if there are any decent human beings left there) and elsewhere might find it worthwhile to at least ask some different questions and dig a bit deeper before jumping in their foxholes and hurling grenades at the other side.
1. I met an engineer (through a swinging-type group, not remotely related to any politics) who worked for British Leyland, I believe, who told me that, back in the 70s, he, along with his fellow engineers, had access to off-the-shelf, immediately-implementable technology to get 50-70 mpg out of cars of that era. When they brought that information to their supervisors, they were told to put it back on the shelf, forget about it, the upper crust wasn't interested. OK....
2. A friend of mine from back home, a very accomplished welder, was hired by a small business who had developed some technology that they thought would revolutionize energy consumption/use as we know it. He was hired to do demonstrations of a welding machine that, apparently, operated on little more than a small battery (for initial starting) and water. Neither he nor I have ANY idea of how this thing actually worked, but he said that the portable version that he was sent on the road with, made absolutely perfect welds. He was brought out to California to do a demo for PSEG, and the room fell silent. He described something like what I have read about in Mr. Tesla's workshop, with sparks flying everywhere, but nothing burning. When he directed the tips of the welding rod to the metals, they fused the way they are supposed to.... He was asked by the big wigs how the machine worked, and he replied with words to the effect: "I'm a welder, not a scientist. I'm telling you the welds are perfect. I have no idea how the machine works. That's your job."
When he got back off the road show, he was told to forget about what he saw or did, that the project was cancelled, there would be no more work, and not to tell anyone. So.
3. More recently, I was chatting with a distant family-member-through-marriage whom I had not seen in a while who was catching me up on his recent work. His paying job was for Sikorsky, but he and a couple of friends were burning the midnight oil working on a project, which was basically a small, home-size electrical generator which ran on water after it was started using a small electrical charge to start (in his case a battery). I lost track of him, because he separated from his wife, who was my family member, but he was peddling the invention to people with money and who were interested in buying it, to kill it, and but his silence. I don't know how it ended up, but I never heard anymore about it.
That's it.
Why is there no sustained interest in finding out what Tesla was doing ? Why are we asking the same questions over and over and over again, always about how can we "extract" energy from something ? Maybe, just maybe it can be generated plentifully ("at scale") with close to zero pollution or environmental degradation.....
I trim trees for living, so I have no ideology here or bones to pick or cause to champion. I'm just asking....
Most interesting post. I see that phenomenon in relation to a cure for cancer. Whoever comes up with one, or even close, is “disappeared.”
I do want to address your saying our “addiction” to energy. That is one of their- the greenies - terms of art, and is utterly false. People are no more addicted to energy than they are to oxygen. It is a necessary force for sustaining life. They just want you to feel guilty for needing it.
I stand corrected. I'll replace "addiction" with " (often) wasteful consumption of". I agree with your point about language.
And yes, the search for the "cure" for cancer will be a lot harder and more fruitless than that of the Holy Grail....way, way, way too much power, money and control tied up with present protocols and "research" for that mess to come undone anytime soon. Anyone who comes close to buckling the system and starts to become prominent in any way will be silenced one way or another.
I have a general science (STEM) background and feel qualified to opine on some of your examples:
(1) highly efficient motors. Within the realm of possibility.
(2) Extremely unlikely. Much of my formal training was in electriciity and electronics. To generate sufficient current for arc welding from a small battery doesn't even come close to passing the "smell test," sorry.
(3) Same criticisms. Doesn't come remotely near what two or more centuries of electrical (and other) science dictates is possible.
Even having cast doubt upon some of your examples, I share the opinion that there is always the risk of existing power structures acting to preserve their power. And logically, that'd include discouraging (or co-opting) new opinion, discovery or technology that might upset the "apple cart." Arguing against that however, is competition. If (say) Ford had that miracle engine, of course they'd market it. But wait, aren't those principles at odds? Yes, they are. Yet both are likely true. Opposing forces exist in uneasy equilibrium. Yes, a cartel or guild would like to control a market for their good or service to maximize profit. But there always will be the motive for any given party to cheat, to undercut his rivals and thus increase his share of the pie.
That said, it falls upon the curious to attempt to separate the plausible from the ridiculous. Did you notice that all your examples were "friend of a friend's uncle's college buddy said..." type? That alone is often a tip-off that the story is bullshit.
All that said, there are plenty of real-world examples where currently fashionable social, political, even large-scale academic, or even corporate beliefs, assertions, policies, etc. that are likely partially or even completely off base. Today's topic (the viability of wind and solar energy) is a prime example. Others, at least in my opinion, include many products of the so-called "health care" industry. A recent horror would be, of course, the mRNA "vaccines." But even many boring everyday products, like statins, fall far short of their inital (or even current!) promises. And these examples, unlike "secret, suppressed" claims, have the redeeming virtue that enough data exists and is (usually) available that a diligent investigator, even if he be a layman, can often approach the realities of a situation, which surprisingly are often quite different than what's promoted in popular belief.
I may have poorly explained what I was trying to convey. Both then people in Examples 2 and 3 said similar things: that the devices in question were INITIALLY "turned on" with a battery, and after that, were powered, somehow, some way with nothing more visible being added than water. Please understand that I did not arrive at a secret meeting with a recorder and note pad; Conversation #1 took place, very much incidental to the purpose of our meeting (a threesome with my wife), Conversation No.2 was hanging out at the shop of a friend whom I hadn't run into in my small town in a while, and Conversation No. 3 was with a family member.
And no, I didn't notice that all of my examples were " "friend of a friend's uncle's college buddy said..." because none of them were. They were all conversations with incredibly sober, thoughtful people who had DIRECT experience...I'm not telling you stories they told me about someone else.
And yes, there would normally be, and I believe there is competition to bring something innovative to market. What seems to happen is that these people, and inventions are co-opted, or "disappear"......
There are trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars involved in extractive energy and in "renewables"...we aren't going to find a solution to the energy "problem" until those teats have been wrung dry, dry-dry.
Same reason why ivermectin and the other very successful easy treatment protocols for COVID were suppressed: $$$$ and control by those who control the existing paradigm.
And whether one believes in God, the ethers, the Rain Gods, or nothing at all, just a casual glance around us at the marvel that is life would suggest that it shouldn't be, and isn't, so bloody difficult to move around, lift stuff, warm stuff and so on.
My ONLY point here is that many many people who are a lot smarter than I seem fixated on discussing different aspects of whatever the issue du jour is, without seemingly examining the underlying premise(s) that structure the conversation, which are taken, by all, as immutable, inevitable and fundamental. I'm suggesting, strongly, that those with the brains and time and resources take look outside their comfort zone, whatever it is, wherever it is. Don't discard some new or not so new idea because it comes from a taxi driver, shaman, welder and so on....Despite all the talk about "thinking outside of the box" my experience suggests that we are just scurrying to our own little corner of the box, while loudly proclaiming our uniqueness.
There is soooo much fact, soooo much evidence, that these “green dreams” are pure fantasy, the people pushing it are either totally brainwashed into full-blown delusion or something far more sinister is at play.
It is a murder/ suicide pact to persist in the lie.
Someone wisely noted that the worst lies are those that are perhaps half-truths. The naive "green" beholds an electric car or even better, a city bus. How quietly and smoothly it runs. And zero exhaust of any type. No smelly diesel particulates like old busses. All that electric power generated by clean windmills or solar farms. He may even have seen either or both, depending upon where he's traveled. But what of the "silent evidence," the myriad factors he's ignored or doesn't even know exist? There is pollution, sweat, labor, cost, upsides, downsides, hidden costs, in the background. Yet he has pleasant fantasies, and he accepts the evidence of his senses ("No smelly exhaust!") as sufficient. He'll brook no further argument.
He ignores the slave children digging with their hands for the precious and scarce minerals needed to make the batteries for their rotten electric vehicles.
What's gonna happen is that all those digital control freaks wanting everything and everyone tied into a world of digital virtual reality are going to meet true reality. In the virtual world, the only thing real is your slave ID embedded into your body. The true reality is that the power needed to get the whole shebang in operation is going to be woefully lacking from the green energy-less grid. And that's a win-win for humanity.
Digital slavery and green energy are at opposite ends of the spectrum. All we need do is ramp up our use of electricity to the point where the system blows...or at least lacks consistency.
The energy lies seem to perfect reflect those of the Plandemic Lies: box out alternative therapies, gov't subsidies for the crap-product, and mandates and liability protections.
What Mitt Romney would call "free market capitalism" is really gov't cronyism and fascism.
This post seems to accept the unwarranted assumption that CO2 is problem and needs to be reduced.
CO2 is not a driving force in "climate change," formerly known as "global warming." But the warming part itself is pretty questionable, too. There is evidence for a three-decade pause in whatever warming has occurred. As for "warming" attributable to humans, that is minimal. Interglacial warming is still a factor. Solar activity is a bigger influence. There are a multitude of things affecting climate. AGW is an overblown scapegoat.
Then there are the data alterations that the CC criminals commit to bolster an untenable case.
Life flourished when CO2 was magnitudes higher than it is now. Plants love it. CO2 is not a global threat in any way, shape, or form.
Indeed, in reality, we are at a dangerously low level of CO2 barely above extinction level. What we NEED is MORE CO2 not less.
In any event, people need to stop parroting the insidious lie that CO2 needs to be lowered and uselessly arguing about how best to do what does NOT NEED TO BE DONE.
The problem is that we need to increase energy consumption by 5X to supply the Developing World who are entitled to have a high energy lifestyle. There is no way we can do that with fossil fuels or wind/solar. So we really have no legit choice but a rapid nuclear build. Happy coincidence, nuclear has zero CO2 emissions and pretty much every other emission. That's why the World cadre of Psychopath Malthusian Parasites despise nuclear power so much and have tried so hard to suppress it.
Too bad our government killed breeder reactors. The more nuclear, the merrier.
But we also have enough coal to last people for centuries to come, if they’d just use it.
But to reiterate: the “excess” CO2 issue is a red herring; irrelevant to the issues at hand. We need more CO2, not less. I don’t care if nuclear power doesn’t produce CO2. I’ll just take the power.
Now, if we could just get government to let go of its insane controls over nuclear power...
Energy is the life blood of an economy. We are not talking about tomatoes here. Being dependent on foreign suppliers is being dependent on bad actors who will exploit that weakness, as has happened in Europe. And I didn't attack you, WTF are you talking about? In a free market every country could build nuclear power. You ever here of loans? Present Value? Cheaper than importing coal, gas, LNG or oil. Even Russia builds NPPs in countries on a via loan payments or a cost of power basis. In a free market there would be no competition for nuclear. That is why it has been suppressed.
Some nations have enough coal. Most don't. You would condemn them to energy poverty and energy boycotts just as Europe is now experiencing. There is so much uranium & thorium everywhere that every nation can become energy independent. Economical reserves of coal need to be conserved for other applications than energy. In fact even with today's prices nuclear is lower cost than coal in any case, so it still makes sense to build out nuclear as rapidly as possible. And cancel almost all wind & solar. Which makes zero sense.
In the UK the rapid expansion of wind should have diluted the effects of global gas price rises. Instead wind generators get paid the gas prices. Something wrong here.
I innocently thought they contracted wind power at their fixed (low bid) prices and that this would flow through into average prices. There is a controversy brewing over UK CFD deals being sidelined so that wind generators can take the profits from high gas prices. Sounds like a failing/rigged market where consumers foot the bill. As the government makes the market rules, is the government being outplayed, or is it working exactly as designed? My rate per kWh has more than trebled over the last two years, from a 100pc renewable supplier. Because gas prices. ????
Here in the USA, (commercial scale) wind generators are guaranteed by Federal law $22 per megawatt-hour, if I recall correctly. That's 2.2 cents per Kw/H, which to me seems cheap. The cheapest State's cost (retail) is four times that, and about 1/7 the national average. As subsidy goes, that doesn't seem very generous. I realize that I haven't looked at wholesale rates. Nor have I considered other benefits to producers and costs to the system (e.g. intermittent source).
Typically retail price is 4X the wholesale or market price of the electricity. And a guaranteed price is quite different from a market price, which can go to zero or even negative. They always get that plus the going market rate, even when much higher. They effectively steal that 2.2 cents from other producers. Odd thing is everyone gets market price but home solar often gets to sell their low grade power at the retail price. The cost of grid distribution, infrastructure and maintenance is far more than the price for raw electricity. Which is one reason wind & solar are such a failure. They don't replace any of that cost. Or even most of the generation cost. All they (theoretically) do is replace fuel cost of generation which is an even smaller cost than the retail cost of electricity.
Wind also is subsidized with triple accelerated depreciation for taxation and a rebuild tax exemption at ~11yrs of life. And they get to sell REC's to utilities and scam artists like Google & Amazon that proclaim 1 unit of wind or solar electricity displaces 1 unit of coal electricity, which it doesn't, not even close. Google & Amazon get average grid mix power same as everyone else no matter how much wind & solar they finance.
It's considerably more. I'm in that business; ITC and Section 179, etc.
That said, you can't store it, so "net metering" laws guarantee that any over production is paid at wholesale rate not retail rate - most states you get nothing.
You're not trading kWh for kWh hours...your trading an over-investment for diminishing IRR.
If Gates, Blackrock, et al. start buying up forests, you know things have changed. Maybe they already are, hedging their bets against their wind and solar investments. But until government stops feeding billions into the green machine, nothing will change. And since government never changes, nothing will change.
It helps if you understand the true aim. It is not ‘clean’ energy, it is no energy. Environmentalism is a misanthropic, Malthusian project to cull the number of Humans on Planet Earth, regress them to a pre-industrial, simple, subsistance agrarian society so as not to ‘use up’ the ‘Earth’s resources’ - there being a no more stupid notion than the Earth having resources, resources being the invention of Mankind, and only of use and value to him. Coal has no value until Man invents a use for it. And that means we cannot know what resources we currently cannot imagine will be invented in the future, short, medium, long term.
It also helps if you view the climate change evil, in the same light as CoVid Fakedemic evil: about science, not bumbling idiots over-reaching, but about a globally coordinated effort to place power and control over the masses into the hands of a few.
I think this, to a large degree, is what it's all about. That and a whole lot of grifting along the way. The people (not really sure these are humans)behind this are seriously mentally deranged sociopaths, obsessed with the power and control their ill gotten gains buy for them. I think that the prospect of killing of, by a myriad of means, of at least 3/4s of the world's population excites them in ways that make Jeffery Dahmer look like a choir boy. But when you cannot even get people to understand that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, but vital for life as we know it...Interesting times, indeed.
I thinks it’s simpler than this depopulation theory. Dollar bills. These “clean energy” plans all line the pockets of politicos and there cronies. It’s a grift plain and simple.
They are doing a lot more than "clean energy". Destroying agriculture, our monetary system, our healthcare system, our education system, corrupting our politicians, law enforcement & the military. In any case they print money out of nothing so the profits stuffed into the pockets of their minions are a minor consideration.
Who's to say they couldn't grift of of nuclear power.... it's expensive enough, . But nuclear supports human civilization.
And food that it's so evil..... more good reasons to oppose them
these people are definitely evil, and dont care about the destruction there schemes will cause, no doubt.
People actually believe CO2, not a consequence of biological processes? Wow
It's the driving delusion behind the banning of fossil fuels and travel by any sort of motorized vehicle. Carbon footprints? Carbon offsets? Gulped down like beer at a frat keg party. And this in spite of ice cores that unequivocally indicate that historically, measurable increases in world temps were FOLLOWED, NOT PRECEDED, by increased CO2. Facts mean nothing to the wacked out zealots and mentally deficient masses on the left.
Yes, this puts the entire premise of "CO2 Bad" into questionable light. How is it that even the universities are blindly genuflecting to such a shaky premise? Everywhere you turn, now, it's all about Carbon Zero bla-bla-bla. What does that even mean? Is no-one considering, just for a pico-nanosecond, what all of the carbon "eliminating" measures could mean for us in unintended consequences?
This is a little silly. Every living creature depends on *resources* and spends much of its working day locating and using them.
We get a little over-wrapped-up in the invention of words to signify real things and then, because we've introduced symbolism, we get detached from the reality.
Ask honeybees and beavers about resources. They understand 'em quite well.
Really? Did Stone Age Man know oil was a resource? Coal? American Indians knew about oil as it bubbled up out of the ground, but it wasn’t a resource. You make my point, many people have no understanding of what a resource is. Coal, gas, oil were not resources until the ideas of Mankind made them so.
‘… in the invention of words to signify real things…’
Hilarious. What then should words be for?
Of course stone age man knew that trees/wood (and probably coal, too), water, animal skins -- and many other things -- were useful "Resources." The fact that others may be found does nothing to change the definition of "Resource"; it is merely something that helps a person or organization function effectively. (Look it up.) ...and yes, physical materials have constrained supplies.
Environmentalism has legitimate concerns (you want glyphosate in your tap water?); the fraud you complain about is better termed "Climate alarmism." Let's keep our lexicon straight, so our goals remain clear.
You are confusing materials with resources. By your definition everything is a resource, including sewage and landfills/garbage dumps. Materials that have significant value to humans are what you call resources. And that is entirely dependent on the technology of the day and the socio-economic situation. Sea turtle shells were once a valuable resource, which decimated their numbers, until it was replaced with plastic made from oil.
Yes everything has a constrained supply, including time & space. The only legitimate question is whether that constraint has significant impact on the economics of their use. And numerically how significant that is. Generally speaking the economic significance is largely determined by the available tech of the day, not the availability of the resource.
Petroleum, from "Petra Oleum" meaning "oil from Petra" (the ancient city, or "oil from rock") has been known and used this side the Atlantic since donkey's years BC.
If you look it up, you'll learn that basic bitumen was used in the construction of boats 6 000 years ago, as just one example of what the people then did with it. Itwas commonly called naphta in historic time.
Not the way we use it today of course, but it was neither mysterious nor unknown.
The "people in historical times were ignorant"-fallacy really needs to be taken out back and shot.
Let's sing a couple of choruses of "Make Paint Like an Egyptian..."
Stone Age Man knew wood was a resource and he turned it into charcoal and made it last longer to feed that essential resource fire.
PS: Stone Age Man knew that certain types of stone were a valuable resource too.
Yep. Not sure if 9 000 BC qualifies as Stone Age everywhere on the globe, but it was about then that people noticed that the orange-y stuff pouring out from certain rocks (possibly because those rocks had been used in fireplaces) was hard, sharp and rather useful once it cooled.
As I put in higher up in the thread, that people in historical times were ignorant is an idea that needs to die.
Indeed, the mediocre mind can not grasp the concept of a resource, nor how to practically apply it.
I agree but what is puzzling is why didn’t they just let rona do the culling? If in fact rona was as deadly as they said? Or is the jab poison doing the culling via myocarditis and other maladies as the rona is no more potent than the season flu?
From all the reports I read, it appears that the major cause of C-19 deaths was the "treatment". I had it, and it was like a normal nasty case of flu. I self treated. And I am 78, have a heart condition and am subject to small strokes. If what they claimed about C-19 was true, I would not be alive to write this. However, since the vax, other health problems, problematic problems, have arisen. The bottom line is that They are at war with us, and so far, we are NOT winning.
COVID is not a "novel condition. It's a variant of SARS, which is a cardiorespiratory virus that emerged 20 years ago. I treated patients with SARS in a couple ICU wards. It's not a common condition. It mostly is contracted by patients ALREADY in the hospital, primarily bc they have depleted immune systems.
Moreover, the vaccines for SARS failed the animal trials. So it's incredulous that a vaccine would be deemed "safe for humans in 2021, as they skipped the animal trials.
I've conducted my own Research in a hospital in Canada. Your proposed study has to pass APPROVAL from a regulated ethical board prior to commencement of the research project. Evidently, the "COVID experiment" never received approval from an ethical board.
Hence, the mid and LONG-TERM adverse effects associated with the Experimental drug are catastrophic.
It won't be agrarian though. It will be big corporations manufacturing our food which will be of a subsistence quality to keep us at minimal health.
Soilent Green.
I disagree with the regression to agrarian society part. Their concept for the future is manufactured "food": chemicals and GMOs. Growing food yourself would probably become crimes against the environment.
We seem to have another who sees clearly. Can you convince others? I hope so! ---- I, Grampa
I try to convince people, but the true believers are stubborn from years of brainwashing.
Exactly. Covid and the climate are really about control. It's a control crisis.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/countering-the-control-crisis
Ogligarchal power has existed for centuries. It's only those not a member of the ogligarchs that get suppressed and tyrannized.
I suppose having a closed system of authority works for some people, otherwise why do so many people pay millions to live in gated communities?
C19 dry run = Proof of Concept (POC) for Rolling Climate Clampdowns.
Have you ever seen any other POC which demonstrates an idea/product validation wholesale?
In other words; preseason games are over
The product is CONTROL.
i take a slightly different view:
yes, covid used all the dishonest tricks of modeling and existential fear hysteria from the AGW grift. i suspect they borrowed them directly from the same propogandists and modelers.
but, ironically, it may be what winds up saving us from the AGW gang.
because unlike climate, where by the time your model is shown to be junk a decade from now, you have 3 new models, 5 new song and dances, and and everyone forgot about the old one, covid was FAST.
you could see it all fail in real time.
you could see what clowns the "experts" were, how naked the grift was, how little they knew and how much they lied.
the trick was too obvious.
and now everyone is awake and aware. trust in experts has plummeted and willingness to accept massive impositions to fight made up threats is on the wane.
i think the global grabbers blew it and wised up the audience.
and i think this is how we wriggle free from them.
I'm torn. I think you bring up a point which is of most concern to me; short memories.
Do you think the average Joe will recognize 5 years from now that they are watching the worlds longest instant replay, while the goalposts and the end zone move faster than their attention?
hard to say, but i think the overton window has shifted dramatically and a lot of folks in the "middle" now find it OK and socially acceptable/laudable to distrust government and grand government edict.
"the experts" took a pretty severe drubbing and the fact that governments are trying to accelerate their plans into this newfound lack of credibility is going to break them. they are driving right at a cliff and don't seem to know it.
All my liberal friends are as Mr. Gardner states. They will not talk or discuss it, do not want to see anything on the subject. They believe the vaccine doesn't work but it saved them from having a bad covid outcome.
I want to believe the Bad Cat prediction is in our future.
So I just left Dicks Sporting Goods and at least half the people working there had masks on.
They were all young!
And I live in Florida!
They're broken...brings me nothing but sorrow.
I saw a young black man alone in a plastic mask shoveling snow here in Detroit. I think masks have morphed into polyvalently symbolic terror management talismans. I would think being young would make it worse, since the firehouse of apocalyptic schist on tv and social media, on many levels, is unavoidable. How do you go on living if the world is descending into apocalypses on so many fronts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory
Here in N. California, I would say that MOST of the people I now see in masks are the young. Teens. Twenties. It's very sad how brainwashed they are.
"They believe the vaccine doesn't work but it saved them from having a bad covid outcome."
I think this is very well put. It seems a very fitting way to describe those of my siblings who took the shots. And by extension, I expect this to be pretty widespread held position.
Even so, the cancers sure are adding up.
Same. I've tried really hard, and gotten a few to admit that masking kindergartners was maybe a bit of an overreaction. Maybe. Beyond that, the narrative that "Covid killed a million Americans and would have killed a million more if not for our miracle-weaving Scientists" is firmly lodged in their psyches. It is a pillar of faith.
Likewise with our response to climate change. California will slide into the Pacific before its Democrat voters opt for rational energy policy.
Lucky you, gato. Most I know still see credibility and now say the jab juice lessened the severity of their covid.
Ctrl-Shift-------ESCAPE!
Lol
"a lot of folks in the "middle" now find it OK and socially acceptable/laudable to distrust government"
You can have My Food Pyramid when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
That food pyramid seems to really be working. I've seen more bipedal pyramids every year since they started that scheme.
Here's another way of thinking about it:
Do you think the average 28 year old couple who put their kids in school, 5 years from now, will even know that the c19 non-vaxx vaxx is on the schedule?
I don't think so. I think little "Tommy" is getting his shot 90% of the time.
Probably end part of some combo vax like MMR in the future, and mandated for school, so the kids will all just take it.
And den...
That is a sinister thought and very sad as there is evidence that the jab sterilises many. Who knows what it does to children?
Not to abuse my responses (lol);
What do you think the object of focus will be the next time for control?
Thermostats.
It'll be something banking related. Controlling the money will be the most important. Locking down bank accounts will be just as easy as locking down people.
Maybe easier. Locking down bank accounts which will mean controlling what you can spend monthly and what you can spend it on will also effectively lock down people meaning amount of travel and distance, how much groceries and what groceries they may buy and consume = their 15 minute city dystopian dream. Meanwhile "our betters the, important people" can continue to fly their private jets to Davos or Beijing or wherever they take their holidays. Throttling us so that there is more for them.
A CBDC and/or other Big Brother expanded economic control may lie in our futures. But I'm amused when folks like you think that no alternatives exist. There always has been, and I propose, always will be a black market, an underground economy, or whatever you'd like to call it. It's always less efficient than electronic finance, yet there's a certain charm in trading in gold or silver coins, cigarettes, nylon stockings (WW II favorites) or even babysitting your neighbor's kids. It's damned hard for the world-improvers to trace, much less control. In fact, that's probably its key feature. Yes, doing so will be unlawful to trade on the unofficial economy (or in some cases, already is!) but consider: You are going to be labeled a criminal for many everyday activities, or even your personal beliefs. If your bank balance can be frozen at the whim of a bureacrat, or worse perhaps by some unaccountable corporation, why should you lose any sleep over doing some off-the-record shopping wiht old silver coins, or whatever?
In the present world, the consumer has great convenience: either in person at myriad stores, or order an infinite range of products via your mobile or PC and it's delivered to your home. What could be easier? Ah, but there's a downside: electronci records of all your activity and the potential for your being "cancelled" for reasons justifiable (you're a deadbeat) or questionable (your beleifs are "incorrect.") But consider the fact that we arleady live ina world where government decrees you cannot buy certain goods or services, or even when legal, they are restricted. E.g. Amazon bans many books and other item sales because they don't fit "community standards," not because they're actually illegal.
Boy you would think there would be some sort of "revolution" if that happened, but I suspect there's a decent chance you're right, given the tools they already have and humanities reaction to the low bar set by c19.
I accidentally had NPR on a few years back and they were talking about a "nudge" needed to control thermostats that are networked. It's not equity for you to have the temp higher than your neighbor!
The shortage is what they are already creating to build demand for this.
You want to really validate your point (which is spot on); ask how many people under 30 who think climate change is man made.
They're "conditioned" and they think the "nudge" is necessary so you don't have the right to condition your own dwelling...and so much more.
We have that now in the form of smart meters. If we give consent they can turn off as needed…define consent.
Exactly! Just like defining the amorphous "vulnerable" or from/with c19 deaths.
Oldest trick in book; ambiguous definitions/understanding/reference points with no defined objectives that can be modulated without much notice (both senses of word).
CRUNCH
That's why I told them to get lost when they wanted to install a smart meter. I know they'll mandate it eventually.
I don’t think smart meters can turn you off - they’d need a high-current power switch. They can charge you more though.
This is from puc.texas.gov "In the future, the meters will be able to communicate with programmable devices (like your air conditioner or dishwasher) through a Home Area Network (HAN) module to monitor and control electricity consumption." Edit: This is probably meant for consumer, as we use on online program to set the thermostat. From CPS energy "...your thermostat will turn on and off at a slightly higher thermostat setting,...." When ours was installed we took part in energy saving options that would adjust our thermostat at peak hours. So instead of the home temp being 80 degrees it would rise to the energy saving default. We still had ability to override.
Are you talking about the electric chair?...:)
"and now everyone is awake and aware"
THAT is way too optimistic.
You only need to wake up some significant fraction... maybe 20%? We’re there already.
Yes. Exactly. I have been thinking the same for almost two years. I hope it is not just my usual wishful thinking, because I am an optimist by heart.
Me too. But I'll admit I've added just a dash of cynicism to my thought process.
IMO it's warranted or we could be caught flat footed again.
Yep, they blew their load too soon.
Thanks I will
Follow these links and have watched Headwinds https://youtu.be/7RgyLDVlAg4
Australia is jumping into the CCP power fix, stupidity at its best, where does the money go... to China...
we export coal but try these stupid ideas.. the coal is going to be burnt in Indonesia India etc producing cheap energy for them but we can’t use it.. the most stupid garbage.. one look at these wind farms and you know there’s a massive carbon input just getting them there, inefficiency power and no doubt they won’t last..
But people don’t look past their emotions and media indoctrination..
Is Carbon Dioxide even the enemy we're told it is? There's a lot of debate around this. I'm starting to think it's all just another lie positioned to get the masses to support government decisions to invest in corporations who create the "solution" (remember the pandemic anyone?) It's hard to see how unsustainable and environmentally damaging solutions like wind turbines help anyone but those invested. Somebodies making bank!
It's as if the world has forgotten that plants breathe in CO2 and create oxygen, while humans exhale CO2 to the benefit of plant life. No one went to science class in sixth grade? What will happen to the planet if the idiots running the circus actually do lower CO2 below the sustainability level of plant life?
Ah yes, agriculture will be stunted and humans will starve.
Exactly! As I understand it, it's probably not even possible to attain a net zero position and even if we did life still produces it at varying levels pending what cycle the earth is currently in and it would have little effect in the big scheme of things. It's just another fear campaign to help channel the money to a targeted destination.
CO2 = PLANT FOOD
It appears to be an excuse. Maybe a Chinese psyops so they get all the energy dense resources. See my post above with the ourworldindata links... and keep in mind China is buying EU and USA coal on the cheap since we aren't using what we mine. It is true that emissions are down in the USA and EU.... but it is increasing through the roof in China. The elite's reply to that is shut up about China. You filthy people need to emmit even less. 😆 I am afraid our rulers have sold us out
Yeah, no surprises there!
CO2 increase actually leads to greening of the earth - deserts shrink as more vegetation grows. The greentards never ask why they burn wood, etc to increase CO2 levels in actual greenhouses to boost production.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
CO2 is essential to life on earth. They may as well demonize oxygen. The more we have, the greener the planet. It doesn’t cause warming, it increases in response to warming. But this whole regime depends on scientific illiteracy.
The "windmill on fire" line got me. One near my childhood hometown in New York State, 2 hours from me, caught on fire just a few days ago. They're all over the place in Western NY. Beautiful area turning into ugly landscaping.
It's happening all over Britain. Our once beautiful hills are defaced by ugly wind turbines which kill birds 2herever you look. They're even sticking them in the sea. They'll all be rusting away everywhere in a few years time when they wear out.
@Cary- they're trying to stick them in the sea off the east coast of the US as well. We've had many dead whales wash up on the shores because of their research.
Thank you! I'm going to forward this to a conservative online newspaper in CA so they can help publicize this info. Plus, I kinda like seeing bureaucrats fall on their sword. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0GGndnnOqw Here's to you, governor hair gel.
I porpose we've overlooked the main reason for so-called "green" energy: money (greed.) St. Paul famously writes that the love of money is the root of all evil. Maybe not ALL evil, but surely a large fraction thereof. One of the oldest rules for investigators, "Follow the money," will answer 99% of your questions, 99% of the time. This isn't to claim that greed is man's sole motivation: Fanatics occasionally willingly (?) kill themself and victims because, presumably, they are acting for some higher ideal. Or perhaps they're just mad. On a happier and much less newsworthy note, millions of volunteers donate money and time in mostly invisible charitable activities, whether it's enabling the local Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, working the ghetto soup kitchen, ladies' sewing circles who knit woolen caps for soldiers in cold climates, and so on.
But the skeptic will never go far wrong in asking "Who profits?" when looking at nearly any individual and, especially, group activity. Often there is a public relations effort, a cover story if you like, to put a happy face on what is at best a crass money making motive, at worst sometimes downright harmful intent or "unavoidable" collateral damage -- e.g. even the most unprincipled capitalist doesn't deliberately set out to sicken the peasantry or lay waste the land; those are unfortunate side effects of his main goal, wealth extraction. In fairness, by no means am I saying that a profit motive is illicit; my point is that there is a line that can be crossed, from honest profit to negligence, to deliberate deception and manipulation and -- sometimes -- coercion. The latter is especially likely whenever governement is invovled to any degree.
Applied to the present topic, for so-called "green" the greed aspect almost always returns to direct or indirect government subsidy. The super-rich profit (e.g. an Elon Musk), the upper middle class (e.g. tax and other subsidy to buy that EV or put solar panels on one's roof), but few of these make economic sense. If it were rational to do those things, in general people would choose them without a stick or a carrot from government.
Whether it's "climate change" or the Covid-19 "pandemic," alleged racial injustice or any of a thousand other burning issues, the observant citizen will note that the "crisis" nearly always is presented as dire, that we must Do Something Right Now!!! And that We're All Gonna Die, or suffer some other calamity if we don't urgently act. May I suggest that to act in haste is nearly always the worst decision? And, unfortuantely, all too often there are "helpful" people looking to stampede the sheep in highly profitable ways. Yes, sometimes the house is afire and one should get the hell out. But really, we should start to ask questions when the fire department was already waiting outside and a kind gentleman was escorting us into the waiting cattle car, handing us a brouchure about our new housing options.
Those last two sentences are absolute gold, Mr. Doorknob. 'fraid I'm gonna have to borrow those. But rest assured I will give attribution.
Yep! Speed Kills.
It seems as though the (Substack) world has become divided between "Drill, baby drill" folks who love their fossil fuels with a side dish of nuclear and the borderline-demented "renewable" folks who insist we can solar panel and windmill our way out of our current energy consumption addiction which requires that someone, somewhere suffers for our energy use, whether it's polluted water supplies from oil drilling and fracking or the mess that lithium mining for batteries leaves behind...and countless other examples.
I don't have the schooling, nor the credentials, nor the ability with the English language that the author of this post and many of the commentators have, so have at me.
I have zero knowledge of chemistry, physics, geology or anything remotely related to energy production or consumption or any related field.
But....
Three times in my life, completely unsolicited, completely unexpected I have found myself in conversations which, to me, are strong enough signals to indicate that all of the really, really smart people, not just here on Substack or Quora, but also in Silicon Valley (if there are any decent human beings left there) and elsewhere might find it worthwhile to at least ask some different questions and dig a bit deeper before jumping in their foxholes and hurling grenades at the other side.
1. I met an engineer (through a swinging-type group, not remotely related to any politics) who worked for British Leyland, I believe, who told me that, back in the 70s, he, along with his fellow engineers, had access to off-the-shelf, immediately-implementable technology to get 50-70 mpg out of cars of that era. When they brought that information to their supervisors, they were told to put it back on the shelf, forget about it, the upper crust wasn't interested. OK....
2. A friend of mine from back home, a very accomplished welder, was hired by a small business who had developed some technology that they thought would revolutionize energy consumption/use as we know it. He was hired to do demonstrations of a welding machine that, apparently, operated on little more than a small battery (for initial starting) and water. Neither he nor I have ANY idea of how this thing actually worked, but he said that the portable version that he was sent on the road with, made absolutely perfect welds. He was brought out to California to do a demo for PSEG, and the room fell silent. He described something like what I have read about in Mr. Tesla's workshop, with sparks flying everywhere, but nothing burning. When he directed the tips of the welding rod to the metals, they fused the way they are supposed to.... He was asked by the big wigs how the machine worked, and he replied with words to the effect: "I'm a welder, not a scientist. I'm telling you the welds are perfect. I have no idea how the machine works. That's your job."
When he got back off the road show, he was told to forget about what he saw or did, that the project was cancelled, there would be no more work, and not to tell anyone. So.
3. More recently, I was chatting with a distant family-member-through-marriage whom I had not seen in a while who was catching me up on his recent work. His paying job was for Sikorsky, but he and a couple of friends were burning the midnight oil working on a project, which was basically a small, home-size electrical generator which ran on water after it was started using a small electrical charge to start (in his case a battery). I lost track of him, because he separated from his wife, who was my family member, but he was peddling the invention to people with money and who were interested in buying it, to kill it, and but his silence. I don't know how it ended up, but I never heard anymore about it.
That's it.
Why is there no sustained interest in finding out what Tesla was doing ? Why are we asking the same questions over and over and over again, always about how can we "extract" energy from something ? Maybe, just maybe it can be generated plentifully ("at scale") with close to zero pollution or environmental degradation.....
I trim trees for living, so I have no ideology here or bones to pick or cause to champion. I'm just asking....
Most interesting post. I see that phenomenon in relation to a cure for cancer. Whoever comes up with one, or even close, is “disappeared.”
I do want to address your saying our “addiction” to energy. That is one of their- the greenies - terms of art, and is utterly false. People are no more addicted to energy than they are to oxygen. It is a necessary force for sustaining life. They just want you to feel guilty for needing it.
I stand corrected. I'll replace "addiction" with " (often) wasteful consumption of". I agree with your point about language.
And yes, the search for the "cure" for cancer will be a lot harder and more fruitless than that of the Holy Grail....way, way, way too much power, money and control tied up with present protocols and "research" for that mess to come undone anytime soon. Anyone who comes close to buckling the system and starts to become prominent in any way will be silenced one way or another.
I have a general science (STEM) background and feel qualified to opine on some of your examples:
(1) highly efficient motors. Within the realm of possibility.
(2) Extremely unlikely. Much of my formal training was in electriciity and electronics. To generate sufficient current for arc welding from a small battery doesn't even come close to passing the "smell test," sorry.
(3) Same criticisms. Doesn't come remotely near what two or more centuries of electrical (and other) science dictates is possible.
Even having cast doubt upon some of your examples, I share the opinion that there is always the risk of existing power structures acting to preserve their power. And logically, that'd include discouraging (or co-opting) new opinion, discovery or technology that might upset the "apple cart." Arguing against that however, is competition. If (say) Ford had that miracle engine, of course they'd market it. But wait, aren't those principles at odds? Yes, they are. Yet both are likely true. Opposing forces exist in uneasy equilibrium. Yes, a cartel or guild would like to control a market for their good or service to maximize profit. But there always will be the motive for any given party to cheat, to undercut his rivals and thus increase his share of the pie.
That said, it falls upon the curious to attempt to separate the plausible from the ridiculous. Did you notice that all your examples were "friend of a friend's uncle's college buddy said..." type? That alone is often a tip-off that the story is bullshit.
All that said, there are plenty of real-world examples where currently fashionable social, political, even large-scale academic, or even corporate beliefs, assertions, policies, etc. that are likely partially or even completely off base. Today's topic (the viability of wind and solar energy) is a prime example. Others, at least in my opinion, include many products of the so-called "health care" industry. A recent horror would be, of course, the mRNA "vaccines." But even many boring everyday products, like statins, fall far short of their inital (or even current!) promises. And these examples, unlike "secret, suppressed" claims, have the redeeming virtue that enough data exists and is (usually) available that a diligent investigator, even if he be a layman, can often approach the realities of a situation, which surprisingly are often quite different than what's promoted in popular belief.
I may have poorly explained what I was trying to convey. Both then people in Examples 2 and 3 said similar things: that the devices in question were INITIALLY "turned on" with a battery, and after that, were powered, somehow, some way with nothing more visible being added than water. Please understand that I did not arrive at a secret meeting with a recorder and note pad; Conversation #1 took place, very much incidental to the purpose of our meeting (a threesome with my wife), Conversation No.2 was hanging out at the shop of a friend whom I hadn't run into in my small town in a while, and Conversation No. 3 was with a family member.
And no, I didn't notice that all of my examples were " "friend of a friend's uncle's college buddy said..." because none of them were. They were all conversations with incredibly sober, thoughtful people who had DIRECT experience...I'm not telling you stories they told me about someone else.
And yes, there would normally be, and I believe there is competition to bring something innovative to market. What seems to happen is that these people, and inventions are co-opted, or "disappear"......
There are trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars involved in extractive energy and in "renewables"...we aren't going to find a solution to the energy "problem" until those teats have been wrung dry, dry-dry.
Same reason why ivermectin and the other very successful easy treatment protocols for COVID were suppressed: $$$$ and control by those who control the existing paradigm.
And whether one believes in God, the ethers, the Rain Gods, or nothing at all, just a casual glance around us at the marvel that is life would suggest that it shouldn't be, and isn't, so bloody difficult to move around, lift stuff, warm stuff and so on.
My ONLY point here is that many many people who are a lot smarter than I seem fixated on discussing different aspects of whatever the issue du jour is, without seemingly examining the underlying premise(s) that structure the conversation, which are taken, by all, as immutable, inevitable and fundamental. I'm suggesting, strongly, that those with the brains and time and resources take look outside their comfort zone, whatever it is, wherever it is. Don't discard some new or not so new idea because it comes from a taxi driver, shaman, welder and so on....Despite all the talk about "thinking outside of the box" my experience suggests that we are just scurrying to our own little corner of the box, while loudly proclaiming our uniqueness.
There is soooo much fact, soooo much evidence, that these “green dreams” are pure fantasy, the people pushing it are either totally brainwashed into full-blown delusion or something far more sinister is at play.
It is a murder/ suicide pact to persist in the lie.
Someone wisely noted that the worst lies are those that are perhaps half-truths. The naive "green" beholds an electric car or even better, a city bus. How quietly and smoothly it runs. And zero exhaust of any type. No smelly diesel particulates like old busses. All that electric power generated by clean windmills or solar farms. He may even have seen either or both, depending upon where he's traveled. But what of the "silent evidence," the myriad factors he's ignored or doesn't even know exist? There is pollution, sweat, labor, cost, upsides, downsides, hidden costs, in the background. Yet he has pleasant fantasies, and he accepts the evidence of his senses ("No smelly exhaust!") as sufficient. He'll brook no further argument.
He ignores the slave children digging with their hands for the precious and scarce minerals needed to make the batteries for their rotten electric vehicles.
Bastiat
What's gonna happen is that all those digital control freaks wanting everything and everyone tied into a world of digital virtual reality are going to meet true reality. In the virtual world, the only thing real is your slave ID embedded into your body. The true reality is that the power needed to get the whole shebang in operation is going to be woefully lacking from the green energy-less grid. And that's a win-win for humanity.
Digital slavery and green energy are at opposite ends of the spectrum. All we need do is ramp up our use of electricity to the point where the system blows...or at least lacks consistency.
The energy lies seem to perfect reflect those of the Plandemic Lies: box out alternative therapies, gov't subsidies for the crap-product, and mandates and liability protections.
What Mitt Romney would call "free market capitalism" is really gov't cronyism and fascism.
This post seems to accept the unwarranted assumption that CO2 is problem and needs to be reduced.
CO2 is not a driving force in "climate change," formerly known as "global warming." But the warming part itself is pretty questionable, too. There is evidence for a three-decade pause in whatever warming has occurred. As for "warming" attributable to humans, that is minimal. Interglacial warming is still a factor. Solar activity is a bigger influence. There are a multitude of things affecting climate. AGW is an overblown scapegoat.
Then there are the data alterations that the CC criminals commit to bolster an untenable case.
Life flourished when CO2 was magnitudes higher than it is now. Plants love it. CO2 is not a global threat in any way, shape, or form.
Indeed, in reality, we are at a dangerously low level of CO2 barely above extinction level. What we NEED is MORE CO2 not less.
In any event, people need to stop parroting the insidious lie that CO2 needs to be lowered and uselessly arguing about how best to do what does NOT NEED TO BE DONE.
The problem is that we need to increase energy consumption by 5X to supply the Developing World who are entitled to have a high energy lifestyle. There is no way we can do that with fossil fuels or wind/solar. So we really have no legit choice but a rapid nuclear build. Happy coincidence, nuclear has zero CO2 emissions and pretty much every other emission. That's why the World cadre of Psychopath Malthusian Parasites despise nuclear power so much and have tried so hard to suppress it.
I’m happy with nuclear. Serves France well.
Too bad our government killed breeder reactors. The more nuclear, the merrier.
But we also have enough coal to last people for centuries to come, if they’d just use it.
But to reiterate: the “excess” CO2 issue is a red herring; irrelevant to the issues at hand. We need more CO2, not less. I don’t care if nuclear power doesn’t produce CO2. I’ll just take the power.
Now, if we could just get government to let go of its insane controls over nuclear power...
What is wrong with you?
A country can’t buy coal from another country?
Most countries don’t have enough money to build a nuclear plant, either. So what? Ever heard of “capitalism” and the “free market”?
**I’m** “condemning” people to “energy poverty”?!?!
I support nuclear expansion, and you attack me like this?
Bugger off.
Energy is the life blood of an economy. We are not talking about tomatoes here. Being dependent on foreign suppliers is being dependent on bad actors who will exploit that weakness, as has happened in Europe. And I didn't attack you, WTF are you talking about? In a free market every country could build nuclear power. You ever here of loans? Present Value? Cheaper than importing coal, gas, LNG or oil. Even Russia builds NPPs in countries on a via loan payments or a cost of power basis. In a free market there would be no competition for nuclear. That is why it has been suppressed.
Some nations have enough coal. Most don't. You would condemn them to energy poverty and energy boycotts just as Europe is now experiencing. There is so much uranium & thorium everywhere that every nation can become energy independent. Economical reserves of coal need to be conserved for other applications than energy. In fact even with today's prices nuclear is lower cost than coal in any case, so it still makes sense to build out nuclear as rapidly as possible. And cancel almost all wind & solar. Which makes zero sense.
Greta, please tell me the ideal temperate and how we get there.
Greta doesn't believe anymore. Like anybody else that really investigated this, she knows it is a grift. She is in it now to line her own purse.
In the UK the rapid expansion of wind should have diluted the effects of global gas price rises. Instead wind generators get paid the gas prices. Something wrong here.
well, i suppose that depends upon who you ask, no?
from the customer standpoint, absolutely.
but from the green energy producer's? it's a grand grift.
i'm always amazed at how these "technologies that are cheaper than fossil or nuclear" need so much advantage and subsidy to compete with them...
the amazing thing about UK "greens" is how much wood they ship in and burn while calling it "carbon neutral"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/14/wood-burning-air-pollution-uk-doubled-decade
I innocently thought they contracted wind power at their fixed (low bid) prices and that this would flow through into average prices. There is a controversy brewing over UK CFD deals being sidelined so that wind generators can take the profits from high gas prices. Sounds like a failing/rigged market where consumers foot the bill. As the government makes the market rules, is the government being outplayed, or is it working exactly as designed? My rate per kWh has more than trebled over the last two years, from a 100pc renewable supplier. Because gas prices. ????
Here in the USA, (commercial scale) wind generators are guaranteed by Federal law $22 per megawatt-hour, if I recall correctly. That's 2.2 cents per Kw/H, which to me seems cheap. The cheapest State's cost (retail) is four times that, and about 1/7 the national average. As subsidy goes, that doesn't seem very generous. I realize that I haven't looked at wholesale rates. Nor have I considered other benefits to producers and costs to the system (e.g. intermittent source).
Typically retail price is 4X the wholesale or market price of the electricity. And a guaranteed price is quite different from a market price, which can go to zero or even negative. They always get that plus the going market rate, even when much higher. They effectively steal that 2.2 cents from other producers. Odd thing is everyone gets market price but home solar often gets to sell their low grade power at the retail price. The cost of grid distribution, infrastructure and maintenance is far more than the price for raw electricity. Which is one reason wind & solar are such a failure. They don't replace any of that cost. Or even most of the generation cost. All they (theoretically) do is replace fuel cost of generation which is an even smaller cost than the retail cost of electricity.
Wind also is subsidized with triple accelerated depreciation for taxation and a rebuild tax exemption at ~11yrs of life. And they get to sell REC's to utilities and scam artists like Google & Amazon that proclaim 1 unit of wind or solar electricity displaces 1 unit of coal electricity, which it doesn't, not even close. Google & Amazon get average grid mix power same as everyone else no matter how much wind & solar they finance.
It's considerably more. I'm in that business; ITC and Section 179, etc.
That said, you can't store it, so "net metering" laws guarantee that any over production is paid at wholesale rate not retail rate - most states you get nothing.
You're not trading kWh for kWh hours...your trading an over-investment for diminishing IRR.
Read “Shorting the Grid” by Meredith Angwin to start understanding how the grift works in the US.
It would be great if there was a UK version of this. Or something like it. I can’t figure out how to see what is going on.
Interesting that solar flares are not included in the data
If Gates, Blackrock, et al. start buying up forests, you know things have changed. Maybe they already are, hedging their bets against their wind and solar investments. But until government stops feeding billions into the green machine, nothing will change. And since government never changes, nothing will change.