Without wanting to make a long article longer, it occurred to me that a third option, human interplanetary expansion, also exists. Why bother spending quadrillions, raping the planet for minerals, all to convert the world to renewable & EV, when that effort could be spent expanding humanity's reach into the solar system and beyond?
If we're faced with a choice between de-industrialise, de-populate, or expand beyond earth's supposed limitations, which option would you willingly choose?
It's abundantly obvious to me that the predator class directing this 'clean energy transition' psyop has absolutely no intention of developing genuinely viable replacements for the high energy-density fuel sources that industrialised societies rely on, and that are necessary for pulling poor nations out of poverty (unless and until alternative sources of high energy-density fuels are developed). They want to impose a neofeudal order in which the masses live in poverty and are totally reliant on their overlords for all their needs.
Yep. If climate change is real, the nuclear or hydro is the only trade off that has the least emissions and gets the greatest bang for buck imho. Just tells me the overlords aren’t serious
I can’t comment on nuclear fusion, I know a nuclear physicist who thinks it’s a pipe dream. The other thing that no one seems to take into account is the demographic cliff facing China ... the worlds population will start to decline.
Not just China. The entire world except for sub-Saharan Africa is facing a demographic crisis as birthrates are below replacement level: https://www.birthgap.org/spaces/10215679/page
Boron-hydrogen fusion is very real, very repeatable, has a net electricity output gain, and does not emit alpha radiation as a by-product. Lerner is using a plasma focus device, which causes the fusion by means of a plasmoid condensate. The main issue, as I noted, is contamination of the boron-hydrogen fuel which results in alpha radiation.
Fair enough. I doubt I’ll ever see a nuclear power station in Australia in my lifetime, unless they plug in one or two of the second subs into the grid. Let alone a fusion one.
Wow, that was a monumental piece. All these so called renewables, aren't renewable. At the moment they are all made by using coal, gas or oil for the industrial creation of these things. When they break down or reach the end of their life span they cannot be broken down and reused. This goes for solar panels and wind turbines. They probably end up in landfill again. As for biofuels, where are we going to grow all this plant mass for this, considering most of the arable land is taken up in food crops. I know, lets get rid of the foods crops and the people and this will fit just nicely.
How are we going to mine all these materials to make these so-called renewables, that aren't renewable? What are the vehicles going to run on to mine, transport this stuff to the factories. What is going to power the furnaces for smelting? Also where oh where are they going to put all these wind farms? I read something from the One Nation Party that the government in Queensland were going to put a whole heap of wind turbines in and even get rid of an old forest to put some of them. Now, how absurd is this. If we only put just some of these solar panel farms around we are going to have to get rid of some of the native environment, which will be detrimental in the end. Besides all this they just don't produce enough energy for our needs.
The reason we transitioned from horse and cart to oil and gas vehicles was not because we thought that transport was dirty or bad for the environment but it was that automobiles performed a lot better than horses. As long as they have enough fuel and oil they can be driven all day and they don't get tired and don't leave dung on the road. We changed because the cars and trucks etc were simply more efficient. So why transition now to something inferior? I am all for not polluting, but until we find something that is really viable and reliable then this whole argument is absurd.
Well, apart from your answers to your questions at the end, the powers that be cannot allow an alternative to succeed because it would make it seem as though there is a viable alternative to their "brilliant" ideas. Elimination or, at least, significant marginalization of alternatives has apparently been a major goal of all totalitarian systems.
Post-script:
Without wanting to make a long article longer, it occurred to me that a third option, human interplanetary expansion, also exists. Why bother spending quadrillions, raping the planet for minerals, all to convert the world to renewable & EV, when that effort could be spent expanding humanity's reach into the solar system and beyond?
If we're faced with a choice between de-industrialise, de-populate, or expand beyond earth's supposed limitations, which option would you willingly choose?
I realised the other day, its not just energy that the hydrocarbons provide.
Roads - where does that bitumen come from?
If we go carbon neutral, do we forgo roads?
Because not only will new roads need to be built without bitumen, what happens to existing roads that pot hole and/or deteorate?
Thanks for taking a deep dive in to this report, and translating it so eloquently into an easily understood read.
It's abundantly obvious to me that the predator class directing this 'clean energy transition' psyop has absolutely no intention of developing genuinely viable replacements for the high energy-density fuel sources that industrialised societies rely on, and that are necessary for pulling poor nations out of poverty (unless and until alternative sources of high energy-density fuels are developed). They want to impose a neofeudal order in which the masses live in poverty and are totally reliant on their overlords for all their needs.
Yep. If climate change is real, the nuclear or hydro is the only trade off that has the least emissions and gets the greatest bang for buck imho. Just tells me the overlords aren’t serious
I can’t comment on nuclear fusion, I know a nuclear physicist who thinks it’s a pipe dream. The other thing that no one seems to take into account is the demographic cliff facing China ... the worlds population will start to decline.
Not just China. The entire world except for sub-Saharan Africa is facing a demographic crisis as birthrates are below replacement level: https://www.birthgap.org/spaces/10215679/page
Boron-hydrogen fusion is very real, very repeatable, has a net electricity output gain, and does not emit alpha radiation as a by-product. Lerner is using a plasma focus device, which causes the fusion by means of a plasmoid condensate. The main issue, as I noted, is contamination of the boron-hydrogen fuel which results in alpha radiation.
Fair enough. I doubt I’ll ever see a nuclear power station in Australia in my lifetime, unless they plug in one or two of the second subs into the grid. Let alone a fusion one.
Wow, that was a monumental piece. All these so called renewables, aren't renewable. At the moment they are all made by using coal, gas or oil for the industrial creation of these things. When they break down or reach the end of their life span they cannot be broken down and reused. This goes for solar panels and wind turbines. They probably end up in landfill again. As for biofuels, where are we going to grow all this plant mass for this, considering most of the arable land is taken up in food crops. I know, lets get rid of the foods crops and the people and this will fit just nicely.
How are we going to mine all these materials to make these so-called renewables, that aren't renewable? What are the vehicles going to run on to mine, transport this stuff to the factories. What is going to power the furnaces for smelting? Also where oh where are they going to put all these wind farms? I read something from the One Nation Party that the government in Queensland were going to put a whole heap of wind turbines in and even get rid of an old forest to put some of them. Now, how absurd is this. If we only put just some of these solar panel farms around we are going to have to get rid of some of the native environment, which will be detrimental in the end. Besides all this they just don't produce enough energy for our needs.
The reason we transitioned from horse and cart to oil and gas vehicles was not because we thought that transport was dirty or bad for the environment but it was that automobiles performed a lot better than horses. As long as they have enough fuel and oil they can be driven all day and they don't get tired and don't leave dung on the road. We changed because the cars and trucks etc were simply more efficient. So why transition now to something inferior? I am all for not polluting, but until we find something that is really viable and reliable then this whole argument is absurd.
Well, apart from your answers to your questions at the end, the powers that be cannot allow an alternative to succeed because it would make it seem as though there is a viable alternative to their "brilliant" ideas. Elimination or, at least, significant marginalization of alternatives has apparently been a major goal of all totalitarian systems.