Great post, ladies and gentlemen, thank you. But we must remember the past four years have been a cautionary tale. The election results clearly show that Mr. Biden’s energy policy was best visualized as the whirlpool of stuff in the toilet just before it empties. If there is a lesson in this election, it is that energy strategies cannot be successful if they are subject to the four-year political cycle.
Mr. Biden and his friends, in their pursuit of unachievable climate goals, forgot the fundamental law that energy is life. Presuming (and there is the risk that he’ll screw it up) that Mr. Trump’s policies do in fact encourage energy development, we must make certain that his policies are not dismantled by the next administration. This can only be done by making people realize that we cannot tackle climate change any more than we can stop the flow of time. Humans may alter its trajectory, but the change in slope is geologically imperceptible.
If there was one thing that could be said that most directly confronts the challenges of society’s understanding of climate today, it would be the words of Madam Curie. “Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.”
eM, please keep up the great work and insightful analysis!
Yep, Marie Curie. Then she died from radiation poisoning that caused aplastic anemia. Never forget Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and other nuclear accidents that have not been as well publicized.
Working at a nuclear weapons lab that admits culpability in the cancers developed by their employees puts me in a position of not believing nuclear power is safe. It is also expensive. Small nuclear reactors are also not safe.
Here's a comment from Beyond Nuclear, an anti-nuclear organization. They actually mention climate mitigation. Climate mitigation is the big problem. At Beyond Nuclear, our mandate is to drive action on climate by ensuring that the right choices are made. Nuclear power is not the right choice. We all know that funding new nuclear power projects gets in the way of climate mitigation — worse, it derails any chance of real progress.
Are you joking? Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima were publicized to the limit of the imagination considering ZERO deaths in the two instances, ~50 deaths in Chernobyl, but that is irrelevant for commercial nuclear power as that was an illegal military reactor without containment.
Your own government kills millions in its regime change wars and hardly even a bleep in the media. Billions will die from your solar power scam due to energy poverty. And certainly many 10's of millions are now dying annually from it. Also a lot of deaths from toxic solar waste, the media don't want to talk about that. A lot of radioactive waste from Rare Earth mines in China, giant tailings ponds full of the stuff.
So what "right choices" are those? Killing billions by forcing them to use pixie power warm sunshine & cool breezes, akin to believing in unicorns?
And your radiation Fear Porn is provable nonsense. Like here:
"In 1928, the longest the ladies could have been sipping radium is about 15 years. The
minimum dose that resulted in cancer is 190,000 mSv. So the dose rate for the cancer victims was at least 35 mSv/day, and that assumes they painted watches every day of the year. The maximum dose that resulted in no cancer is 160,000 mSv. The corresponding lowest possible dose rate is 29 mSv/day. It appears that the dial painters’ repair systems could cope with up to 30 mSv/day, but not much more. "
Those are large doses, vastly less significant than chemical pollutants regularly released in billions of times the amount. Look what they deliberately (as in not accidentally) did in East Palestine, even the EPA said "ho-hum". That was like ten Chernobyls all at once. Where was all the media? Where was your "Beyond Nuclear" group of grifters?
Dear FS Smith - First, you clearly either did not read or did not understand what I said. I mentioned the highly publicized events and said there were OTHERS that were not publicized. The deaths from the big events are ongoing. It takes time for cancers to develop. Generally, cancer doesn't happen immediately after exposure. Cancers develop over years, except possibly for what doctors are calling turbo cancers happening since the release of the mRNA shots.
I am not a proponent of wind farms, hot dry rock geothermal energy, big solar farms, or other forms of what you call pixie power. Fossil fuels work very well. Individual solar panels also work very well in many parts of the world. Please show me any reputable study on "toxic solar waste". I do not believe in forcing people to choose certain sources of power or even certain vehicles. That is de facto what happens though.
That CO2 produced by fossil fuels is killing the planet is not "settled science". It is probably an artifact of faulty modeling. False premise, false results. To add nuclear power plants to the mix of so-called "solutions" seems like over-reach. The inherent difficulties in waste disposal and the cost of building and properly maintaining nuclear power plants would argue against that being a viable source of energy. As well, they must be located somewhere with a lot of water available.
Off topic, but since you bring it up, I agree the US government kills millions in its regime change wars. I cannot help that the media are bought and paid for and don't report that. I try to support media that are independent with fewer biases, and there is not much of that.
I do not endorse Beyond Nuclear. What I was trying to point out is that even THEY refer to climate mitigation, as in, OMG I'll say it, chem trails that are poisoning the earth and life on it, and are causing extreme weather events. Here is their statement re climate mitigation - We all know that funding new nuclear power projects gets in the way of climate mitigation —
I passionately think that climate mitigation is one of the most dangerous operations going on now. That is, unless nuclear war is brought on by US actions in Ukraine.
I'm afraid that in your seemingly uncontrollable rage, you didn't read carefully.
We're not nuclear power or weapons experts. But as we understand it, the LEU used by most U.S. reactor designs is enriched to ~5%. HALEU and similar butts up against the 20% limit. Weapons grade material well over 20% (and some of what we're using is reprocessed former weapons-grade material blended down to 5%).
Without being experts in either, we ask a question out of interest. Isn't there a material difference in the radiological exposure risk related to the weapons-grade material you are handling vs. HALEU for future SMR designs and LEU for present large scale reactors like AP-1000s at Plant Vogtle? Is it fair/reasonable to relate exposure from weapons production to the exposure of nuclear power plant operators?
If you're talking to me, I don't have time right now to answer all your questions, but we who are compensated by the DOL via LANL did not "handle weapons grade material". We were exposed to radiation via simply visiting and working in offices at the Nevada Test Site. The people mining the uranium were exposed by mining the uranium. The waste is the waste. No amount of rationalization will change that. We were also exposed at the storage areas in Los Alamos not by handling the material, but by being simply exposed to it by breathing. Most of the people who were exposed via "handling weapons grade material" are dead. Plutonium was the major factor for them. But I have to find the articles written by the folks at Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety regarding HALEU and LEU. The folks in St. George Utah were exposed by the fallout from the Nevada Test Site. The folks and environment in Chernobyl, Pennsylvania, and Japan were exposed by the failure of the nuclear power plants-not weapons grade material.
Nice job making shit up. None of those deaths you claim actually happened. Meanwhile millions actually die (as in not made up) due to the millions of times greater number of carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens, toxins, heavy metals released by ALL other forms of energy. Which we accept because energy = life. Low energy = death. Except for wind & solar pixie power scams, for that "no energy" = lives saved.
Los Alamos's first death from criticality-produced radiation occurred in September, 1945, 25 days after physicist Harry Daghlian deliberately lowered a large piece of plutonium into a cavity made of tungsten bricks that …
This is a very small glimpse of the overall picture of the cancers the Lab accepts culpability for. The group that acts as interface between those of us who have gotten cancer during our time working at the various nuclear facilities had a Northern New Mexico event. There were 750 of us there. That was a very small number of those affected, especially if you include Hanford, WA, Oak Ridge, TN, and Savannah River, SC. As a widow of a man who died from his second cancer and as a person who has had cancer with a recurrence, I do NOT MAKE SHIT UP, as you so genteelly put it.
Also, if I wasn't clear, CO2 as a climate change myth is believed by many scientists to be just that , a climate change myth. Why exacerbate the dangers by introducing a bunch of nuclear power plants? Stop the climate mitigation operations and the climate problems may be largely solved. Not completely, but largely.
Oops, my comments on CO2 were in another sub stack. Here they are for your edification. I'm laughing at my arrogance in saying that.
"Unexamined premises" are the explanation for the climate change modeling that rules the environmental groups' false solutions. False premise, false result. Garbage in, garbage out. That's about it for my cliches. There are rather undeniable weather extremes (see Southern Spain and Sicily currently). The problem as seen by many is not the CO2 myth, but geoengineering operations. There's enough evidence by now to support that claim. Now the powers are openly touting stratospheric aerosol injection and solar radiation management. The fact they've been doing that and it has intensified since 2020 is of no consequence. Here's another cliche. Buckle up, baby.
Did Mr. Biden and his friends forget that energy is life? (That's one of a dozen Doomberg terms that bounce constantly in our head. Like "most people think of energy as a derivative of the economy. They have it backwards, the economy is a derivative of energy").
Or, did they dread that energy is life, ala Simon, Holdren and that whole crowd?
The question throws us back against the "is it ignorance or is it malevolence" wall......
Thanks for the nearly two years you've been a regular here, Barry. We're grateful.
The Trump sweep is undoubtedly a big blow to the hysterical green movement, but we are well advised to look beyond US media and politics. If you read the financial news agencies like the Financial Times, The Economist, Reuters, and Bloomberg, it's amazing how deep they are dug into the CO2 myth. How will they "unburrow" from the hole they have dug for themselves? Let's watch those publications. If they shift their dogmatic positions, this will be a good bellwether of the progress of reason against the embedded green fantasy.
Agree. CO2 myth is right. There are extreme weather events however. If none of you believe that climate modification/manipulation is real, take the time/trouble to look up climate modification committee or board in your state. Check out what it is they do. Do you honestly still think those stripes in the skies are contrails? Now the gov't is going public saying they "have to do solar aerosol injections and solar radiation management". What in the name of Pete do you think they've been doing and for the past 4 years have been intensifying worldwide. Check out what's happening in Southern Spain and Italy. Yeah, all just normal.
So you don't trust your own governments on chemtrails & Bill Gates aerosol injections but you do trust the same bunch on their $trillion wind & solar "Green Energy", "Green New Deal", "UN Agenda 2030", IRA scams. Nice.
My dear SmithFS, you are sooooo wrong in your analysis. I have personal experience with my individual solar array. Yes, I trust my personal experience. The Green New Deal is BS. The UN should be shut down. Nice yourself. Settle down.
Here's a prediction: they will all eventually change their tune. But, as you note, they are highly vested in all this. So, don't expect them to be the canaries in the coal mine. Expect physics and economics to drag them across the reality line, kicking and screaming (then whimpering) the whole way.
We like that about all of them. (Good for business!)
Solar may have a great future... in space! With 24 hours of sunlight powering equipment in orbit or at Lagrange points. For Moon or Mars habits, solar may be useful but nuclear is still the way to go.
In the long term, it's probably all going in landfills.
In the short term, we see it as the lone survivor in in continued attempts to push/mandate/subsidize nonreliables. We are opposed to large-scale battery storage to attempt to buffer its intermittence.
The solar array I have on my garage roof works beautifully. Large solar arrays owned by electric companies are BS. If the powers that are would provide people who are interested with rooftop solar arrays instead of building wind and solar farms, problems could be solved in a large area of the country. But, of course, you will shoot my comments down even though I could provide you with proof based on my electric bills.
I don't have batteries. I use the electric company's grid (unfortunately, I was told the batteries are not reliable enough). The metering is done by the electric company. I live in NM where we used to have plenty of sunshine. With the "cloud seeding" operations, we have less. Nevertheless, I use an average of between 51 and 60 KWH/day. The electric coop penalizes those of us with home solar by charging an add on of between $33/month (whether I'm providing them with power or they are supplementing me with power). I've talked to another home solar owner who is paying $55/month. My electric bills are 1/4 to 1/2 of what I used to pay pre-solar. And occasionally they are only the $33 add on. I reiterate, the array works beautifully, is 10 years old, and shows no signs of deterioration. I understand solar won't work "beautifully" if you are in places where "the sun don't shine" lol.
51-60 kwh/day is a high electricity consumption. You are likely only supplying at most 20% of your own electricity consumption on average.
You are getting Net Metering which means you are not paying for the cost of the grid & grid management which is the bulk of the electricity cost, except for that small $33/month. While other electricity generators are getting ~3 cents/kwh for their electricity you are being paid ~14 cents/kwh for your electricity. Except they supply high grade electricity in blocks when and only if the utility wants it, with stiff penalties if they fail to deliver. So you are being HEAVILY subsidized for your solar electricity, not even counting added Federal & State tax credits.
You are forcing the single mom living in a grimy apartment, to chose between feeding her child or paying her electricity bill, so she can subsidize you so you can pretend "I'm Green". Sorry, no you aren't green. You are a wealthy welfare bum, living off the dole.
In Australia now, home solar owners are now being charged by the utility a storage fee for electricity they send to the grid. Somebody has to pay for it, why not the home whom produces it?
This has led to solar electricity wastage = energy inefficiency. Some guy actually ran a cable out to the street so he could give away power to EV users for free. And he runs his dryer with one pair of socks in it.
The reality is that your system would actually cost you ~60 cents/kwh for supplying the electricity that you ACTUALLY use. Unless you install batteries which are very expensive.
Everyone here pays .10475 for the first 700 kwh. I pay a premium for excess kwh. Too bad the government doesn't install personal solar panels on that grimy apartment roof instead of getting everyone to pay for nuclear power plants.
SmithFS - more flies with honey..... I do not consider myself green. I despise that crap. in fact. Aw, poor single mom. You should have written speeches for kamala. As I said in answer to another one of your diatribes, settle down.
Once the belief driven fevered dreams of the adherents to the green religion are finally replaced with logic and actual science, it will become clear that our future prosperity relies on abundant nuclear power and natural gas. Wind and solar will be relegated to areas with high sustained average wind speeds and solar irradiance, and will still have to be fully backed up with natural gas. All of the decommissioned coal power plant sites are available for siting natural gas and nuclear power. They are all brownfield industrial sites with access to cooling water and grid interconnections with the added benefit of being located near load consuming centers. I put the attached google map together to illustrate the point:
This team has lots of experience on brownfield sites (in the context of site assessment/characterization/remediation/purchase/sale/redevelopment.
Tried to hit your link but access was denied.
We agree. Many of these sites have the natural features, grid interconnections, etc. They're the obvious low hanging fruit. Many (most?) of the existing 50-odd nuclear power plant sites were located and developed in a manner to allow expansion.
The green ideology put all this 25 years behind, likely even more. We have a lot of catching up to do.
Nice video. If you shift the focus from what Greens are saying to what Greens are doing, it is pretty obvious that they are motivated by malignant psychologies. Glad that people are finally waking up to this fact.
"Malignant psychologies" is good. We also like Gad Saad's term "parasitic mind virus". Both work.
The EPA tailpipe emissions rule is a good example of watch what they're saying vs. what they're doing. "It's not an EV mandate! It doesn't say that!". Meanwhile, writing a rule which makes it impossible for auto mfrs to make cars with ICE engines without turning them into 3 wheel rickshaws to meet the mpg standard, a de facto EV mandate.
That's like Germany's Green Party Economics minister just had the some guy arrested and all his electronics confiscated because he retweeted a meme showing how incompetent Habeck is. Germany is fast becoming a Fascist state and the Green gang are at the forefront of the effort. Now trying to ban the #2 political party.
I think it is a combination of ignorance, compassion unrestrained by results, and malevolence.
It is important to note that is an intentional ignorance. In the internet search era, it is very easy to acquire information if one wants to. I think it is a few very smart anti-social people who weave an ideology that wraps anti-social and self-destructive behaviors in a veneer of morality. Then naive young people who want to do good fall for it, but they are not too worried about the obvious negative results.
Most of the people believe that they are doing good, but they reject any evidence that shows bad results. The fact that they get angry at people who point to the bad results is very telling.
You made my week! Thank you for the great work! Next highlight will be a completely different Cabinet of fresh, new, clear thinking, freedom loving, America First Patriots being confirmed/appointed👊🧹🗽🇺🇸
Otherwise, for example, we could take a one minute clip of this 70s song and do some real damage with videos of UXB's (aka EVs) who suffered an "uncontrolled chemical reaction" (aka fire) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqsYNc_M988
Fantastic! The guy throwing away the crybabies’ signs was the best, until you ended with the pic of the women famous for wailing after Trump won in 2016. That pic never gets old!
Um, no. Just no. Maybe it's just been so long since you did any radio theory that you've forgotten the underlying physical law - there is no free lunch. Every resonant circuit has a Q factor, that is, it has losses. Extracting energy makes it run down, just like anything else. (I was trained as a Broadcast Tech 50 years ago and retired from Analog Devices last November).
My dearly departed husband was an electrical engineer. Awful joke, his batteries ran down. I wonder what he would have thought of your post. I don't have the education to evaluate it. Do you have the patent?
Should we expect a name change from EnvironMENTAL to EnvironmentaLOGICAL? Probably not due to too many syllables.
No to EcoLOGICAL.
8 syllables…..
But, directionally you could be on to something for our followers.
(environMENTALists?)
😉
I always appreciate your humor!
This Substack thing is rather enjoyable.
;)
Awesome video!!!! YES, keep them coming!
Thanks!
Great post, ladies and gentlemen, thank you. But we must remember the past four years have been a cautionary tale. The election results clearly show that Mr. Biden’s energy policy was best visualized as the whirlpool of stuff in the toilet just before it empties. If there is a lesson in this election, it is that energy strategies cannot be successful if they are subject to the four-year political cycle.
Mr. Biden and his friends, in their pursuit of unachievable climate goals, forgot the fundamental law that energy is life. Presuming (and there is the risk that he’ll screw it up) that Mr. Trump’s policies do in fact encourage energy development, we must make certain that his policies are not dismantled by the next administration. This can only be done by making people realize that we cannot tackle climate change any more than we can stop the flow of time. Humans may alter its trajectory, but the change in slope is geologically imperceptible.
If there was one thing that could be said that most directly confronts the challenges of society’s understanding of climate today, it would be the words of Madam Curie. “Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.”
eM, please keep up the great work and insightful analysis!
Yep, Marie Curie. Then she died from radiation poisoning that caused aplastic anemia. Never forget Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and other nuclear accidents that have not been as well publicized.
Working at a nuclear weapons lab that admits culpability in the cancers developed by their employees puts me in a position of not believing nuclear power is safe. It is also expensive. Small nuclear reactors are also not safe.
Here's a comment from Beyond Nuclear, an anti-nuclear organization. They actually mention climate mitigation. Climate mitigation is the big problem. At Beyond Nuclear, our mandate is to drive action on climate by ensuring that the right choices are made. Nuclear power is not the right choice. We all know that funding new nuclear power projects gets in the way of climate mitigation — worse, it derails any chance of real progress.
Are you joking? Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima were publicized to the limit of the imagination considering ZERO deaths in the two instances, ~50 deaths in Chernobyl, but that is irrelevant for commercial nuclear power as that was an illegal military reactor without containment.
Your own government kills millions in its regime change wars and hardly even a bleep in the media. Billions will die from your solar power scam due to energy poverty. And certainly many 10's of millions are now dying annually from it. Also a lot of deaths from toxic solar waste, the media don't want to talk about that. A lot of radioactive waste from Rare Earth mines in China, giant tailings ponds full of the stuff.
So what "right choices" are those? Killing billions by forcing them to use pixie power warm sunshine & cool breezes, akin to believing in unicorns?
And your radiation Fear Porn is provable nonsense. Like here:
https://gordianknotbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/essays_lnt2_v3.pdf
"In 1928, the longest the ladies could have been sipping radium is about 15 years. The
minimum dose that resulted in cancer is 190,000 mSv. So the dose rate for the cancer victims was at least 35 mSv/day, and that assumes they painted watches every day of the year. The maximum dose that resulted in no cancer is 160,000 mSv. The corresponding lowest possible dose rate is 29 mSv/day. It appears that the dial painters’ repair systems could cope with up to 30 mSv/day, but not much more. "
Those are large doses, vastly less significant than chemical pollutants regularly released in billions of times the amount. Look what they deliberately (as in not accidentally) did in East Palestine, even the EPA said "ho-hum". That was like ten Chernobyls all at once. Where was all the media? Where was your "Beyond Nuclear" group of grifters?
Dear FS Smith - First, you clearly either did not read or did not understand what I said. I mentioned the highly publicized events and said there were OTHERS that were not publicized. The deaths from the big events are ongoing. It takes time for cancers to develop. Generally, cancer doesn't happen immediately after exposure. Cancers develop over years, except possibly for what doctors are calling turbo cancers happening since the release of the mRNA shots.
I am not a proponent of wind farms, hot dry rock geothermal energy, big solar farms, or other forms of what you call pixie power. Fossil fuels work very well. Individual solar panels also work very well in many parts of the world. Please show me any reputable study on "toxic solar waste". I do not believe in forcing people to choose certain sources of power or even certain vehicles. That is de facto what happens though.
That CO2 produced by fossil fuels is killing the planet is not "settled science". It is probably an artifact of faulty modeling. False premise, false results. To add nuclear power plants to the mix of so-called "solutions" seems like over-reach. The inherent difficulties in waste disposal and the cost of building and properly maintaining nuclear power plants would argue against that being a viable source of energy. As well, they must be located somewhere with a lot of water available.
Off topic, but since you bring it up, I agree the US government kills millions in its regime change wars. I cannot help that the media are bought and paid for and don't report that. I try to support media that are independent with fewer biases, and there is not much of that.
I do not endorse Beyond Nuclear. What I was trying to point out is that even THEY refer to climate mitigation, as in, OMG I'll say it, chem trails that are poisoning the earth and life on it, and are causing extreme weather events. Here is their statement re climate mitigation - We all know that funding new nuclear power projects gets in the way of climate mitigation —
I passionately think that climate mitigation is one of the most dangerous operations going on now. That is, unless nuclear war is brought on by US actions in Ukraine.
I'm afraid that in your seemingly uncontrollable rage, you didn't read carefully.
We're not nuclear power or weapons experts. But as we understand it, the LEU used by most U.S. reactor designs is enriched to ~5%. HALEU and similar butts up against the 20% limit. Weapons grade material well over 20% (and some of what we're using is reprocessed former weapons-grade material blended down to 5%).
Without being experts in either, we ask a question out of interest. Isn't there a material difference in the radiological exposure risk related to the weapons-grade material you are handling vs. HALEU for future SMR designs and LEU for present large scale reactors like AP-1000s at Plant Vogtle? Is it fair/reasonable to relate exposure from weapons production to the exposure of nuclear power plant operators?
Asking as non-experts and appreciate your info.
If you're talking to me, I don't have time right now to answer all your questions, but we who are compensated by the DOL via LANL did not "handle weapons grade material". We were exposed to radiation via simply visiting and working in offices at the Nevada Test Site. The people mining the uranium were exposed by mining the uranium. The waste is the waste. No amount of rationalization will change that. We were also exposed at the storage areas in Los Alamos not by handling the material, but by being simply exposed to it by breathing. Most of the people who were exposed via "handling weapons grade material" are dead. Plutonium was the major factor for them. But I have to find the articles written by the folks at Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety regarding HALEU and LEU. The folks in St. George Utah were exposed by the fallout from the Nevada Test Site. The folks and environment in Chernobyl, Pennsylvania, and Japan were exposed by the failure of the nuclear power plants-not weapons grade material.
Nice job making shit up. None of those deaths you claim actually happened. Meanwhile millions actually die (as in not made up) due to the millions of times greater number of carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens, toxins, heavy metals released by ALL other forms of energy. Which we accept because energy = life. Low energy = death. Except for wind & solar pixie power scams, for that "no energy" = lives saved.
SmithFS You can look up plutonium deaths at Los Alamos National Laboratory. There seem to have been 3 or 5 depending on the source. That's why I said the people who "handled" plutonium are dead. You might want to increase your knowledge by reading this. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351958856_Mortality_among_Workers_at_the_Los_Alamos_National_Laboratory_1943-2017
Los Alamos's first death from criticality-produced radiation occurred in September, 1945, 25 days after physicist Harry Daghlian deliberately lowered a large piece of plutonium into a cavity made of tungsten bricks that …
This is a very small glimpse of the overall picture of the cancers the Lab accepts culpability for. The group that acts as interface between those of us who have gotten cancer during our time working at the various nuclear facilities had a Northern New Mexico event. There were 750 of us there. That was a very small number of those affected, especially if you include Hanford, WA, Oak Ridge, TN, and Savannah River, SC. As a widow of a man who died from his second cancer and as a person who has had cancer with a recurrence, I do NOT MAKE SHIT UP, as you so genteelly put it.
Also, if I wasn't clear, CO2 as a climate change myth is believed by many scientists to be just that , a climate change myth. Why exacerbate the dangers by introducing a bunch of nuclear power plants? Stop the climate mitigation operations and the climate problems may be largely solved. Not completely, but largely.
Oops, my comments on CO2 were in another sub stack. Here they are for your edification. I'm laughing at my arrogance in saying that.
"Unexamined premises" are the explanation for the climate change modeling that rules the environmental groups' false solutions. False premise, false result. Garbage in, garbage out. That's about it for my cliches. There are rather undeniable weather extremes (see Southern Spain and Sicily currently). The problem as seen by many is not the CO2 myth, but geoengineering operations. There's enough evidence by now to support that claim. Now the powers are openly touting stratospheric aerosol injection and solar radiation management. The fact they've been doing that and it has intensified since 2020 is of no consequence. Here's another cliche. Buckle up, baby.
Thanks!
Did Mr. Biden and his friends forget that energy is life? (That's one of a dozen Doomberg terms that bounce constantly in our head. Like "most people think of energy as a derivative of the economy. They have it backwards, the economy is a derivative of energy").
Or, did they dread that energy is life, ala Simon, Holdren and that whole crowd?
The question throws us back against the "is it ignorance or is it malevolence" wall......
Thanks for the nearly two years you've been a regular here, Barry. We're grateful.
This has fast become one of my favorite stacks. Love the humour.
Too kind. Thanks!
The Trump sweep is undoubtedly a big blow to the hysterical green movement, but we are well advised to look beyond US media and politics. If you read the financial news agencies like the Financial Times, The Economist, Reuters, and Bloomberg, it's amazing how deep they are dug into the CO2 myth. How will they "unburrow" from the hole they have dug for themselves? Let's watch those publications. If they shift their dogmatic positions, this will be a good bellwether of the progress of reason against the embedded green fantasy.
Agree. CO2 myth is right. There are extreme weather events however. If none of you believe that climate modification/manipulation is real, take the time/trouble to look up climate modification committee or board in your state. Check out what it is they do. Do you honestly still think those stripes in the skies are contrails? Now the gov't is going public saying they "have to do solar aerosol injections and solar radiation management". What in the name of Pete do you think they've been doing and for the past 4 years have been intensifying worldwide. Check out what's happening in Southern Spain and Italy. Yeah, all just normal.
So you don't trust your own governments on chemtrails & Bill Gates aerosol injections but you do trust the same bunch on their $trillion wind & solar "Green Energy", "Green New Deal", "UN Agenda 2030", IRA scams. Nice.
My dear SmithFS, you are sooooo wrong in your analysis. I have personal experience with my individual solar array. Yes, I trust my personal experience. The Green New Deal is BS. The UN should be shut down. Nice yourself. Settle down.
Here's a prediction: they will all eventually change their tune. But, as you note, they are highly vested in all this. So, don't expect them to be the canaries in the coal mine. Expect physics and economics to drag them across the reality line, kicking and screaming (then whimpering) the whole way.
We like that about all of them. (Good for business!)
we need the central banks to be pushed out of the space, then the financial firms won't feel it necessary to be part of it.
Solar may have a great future... in space! With 24 hours of sunlight powering equipment in orbit or at Lagrange points. For Moon or Mars habits, solar may be useful but nuclear is still the way to go.
In the long term, it's probably all going in landfills.
In the short term, we see it as the lone survivor in in continued attempts to push/mandate/subsidize nonreliables. We are opposed to large-scale battery storage to attempt to buffer its intermittence.
agree completely sir. thank you. solar is effective only when the radiation is uninterrupted by orbital or atmospheric physics.
The solar array I have on my garage roof works beautifully. Large solar arrays owned by electric companies are BS. If the powers that are would provide people who are interested with rooftop solar arrays instead of building wind and solar farms, problems could be solved in a large area of the country. But, of course, you will shoot my comments down even though I could provide you with proof based on my electric bills.
It does, really? What location, what size, batteries? Net metering? what generation by month? And we'll decide whether it works beautifully or not.
I don't have batteries. I use the electric company's grid (unfortunately, I was told the batteries are not reliable enough). The metering is done by the electric company. I live in NM where we used to have plenty of sunshine. With the "cloud seeding" operations, we have less. Nevertheless, I use an average of between 51 and 60 KWH/day. The electric coop penalizes those of us with home solar by charging an add on of between $33/month (whether I'm providing them with power or they are supplementing me with power). I've talked to another home solar owner who is paying $55/month. My electric bills are 1/4 to 1/2 of what I used to pay pre-solar. And occasionally they are only the $33 add on. I reiterate, the array works beautifully, is 10 years old, and shows no signs of deterioration. I understand solar won't work "beautifully" if you are in places where "the sun don't shine" lol.
51-60 kwh/day is a high electricity consumption. You are likely only supplying at most 20% of your own electricity consumption on average.
You are getting Net Metering which means you are not paying for the cost of the grid & grid management which is the bulk of the electricity cost, except for that small $33/month. While other electricity generators are getting ~3 cents/kwh for their electricity you are being paid ~14 cents/kwh for your electricity. Except they supply high grade electricity in blocks when and only if the utility wants it, with stiff penalties if they fail to deliver. So you are being HEAVILY subsidized for your solar electricity, not even counting added Federal & State tax credits.
You are forcing the single mom living in a grimy apartment, to chose between feeding her child or paying her electricity bill, so she can subsidize you so you can pretend "I'm Green". Sorry, no you aren't green. You are a wealthy welfare bum, living off the dole.
In Australia now, home solar owners are now being charged by the utility a storage fee for electricity they send to the grid. Somebody has to pay for it, why not the home whom produces it?
This has led to solar electricity wastage = energy inefficiency. Some guy actually ran a cable out to the street so he could give away power to EV users for free. And he runs his dryer with one pair of socks in it.
The reality is that your system would actually cost you ~60 cents/kwh for supplying the electricity that you ACTUALLY use. Unless you install batteries which are very expensive.
Oh and there are no federal or state credits. There was an initial fed credit of $7500 but that was long ago.
SmithFS do you own a lot of nuclear power plant stock or something? When people get as vehement as you about an issue, I say follow the money.
Everyone here pays .10475 for the first 700 kwh. I pay a premium for excess kwh. Too bad the government doesn't install personal solar panels on that grimy apartment roof instead of getting everyone to pay for nuclear power plants.
SmithFS - more flies with honey..... I do not consider myself green. I despise that crap. in fact. Aw, poor single mom. You should have written speeches for kamala. As I said in answer to another one of your diatribes, settle down.
Once the belief driven fevered dreams of the adherents to the green religion are finally replaced with logic and actual science, it will become clear that our future prosperity relies on abundant nuclear power and natural gas. Wind and solar will be relegated to areas with high sustained average wind speeds and solar irradiance, and will still have to be fully backed up with natural gas. All of the decommissioned coal power plant sites are available for siting natural gas and nuclear power. They are all brownfield industrial sites with access to cooling water and grid interconnections with the added benefit of being located near load consuming centers. I put the attached google map together to illustrate the point:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1QBresJWwMzri0sygk5l-4j01xnP1lXU&ll=32.051791212909514%2C-96.21089758005473&z=5
This team has lots of experience on brownfield sites (in the context of site assessment/characterization/remediation/purchase/sale/redevelopment.
Tried to hit your link but access was denied.
We agree. Many of these sites have the natural features, grid interconnections, etc. They're the obvious low hanging fruit. Many (most?) of the existing 50-odd nuclear power plant sites were located and developed in a manner to allow expansion.
The green ideology put all this 25 years behind, likely even more. We have a lot of catching up to do.
Well, that was fun!
Thanks.
Sprinkle one of those in once in a while? Or keep it to the writing?
Nice video. If you shift the focus from what Greens are saying to what Greens are doing, it is pretty obvious that they are motivated by malignant psychologies. Glad that people are finally waking up to this fact.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/is-green-activism-based-on-good-intentions
Is it ignorance or is it malevolence?
"Malignant psychologies" is good. We also like Gad Saad's term "parasitic mind virus". Both work.
The EPA tailpipe emissions rule is a good example of watch what they're saying vs. what they're doing. "It's not an EV mandate! It doesn't say that!". Meanwhile, writing a rule which makes it impossible for auto mfrs to make cars with ICE engines without turning them into 3 wheel rickshaws to meet the mpg standard, a de facto EV mandate.
Kick that kinda "rule" making to the curb.
That's like Germany's Green Party Economics minister just had the some guy arrested and all his electronics confiscated because he retweeted a meme showing how incompetent Habeck is. Germany is fast becoming a Fascist state and the Green gang are at the forefront of the effort. Now trying to ban the #2 political party.
I think it is a combination of ignorance, compassion unrestrained by results, and malevolence.
It is important to note that is an intentional ignorance. In the internet search era, it is very easy to acquire information if one wants to. I think it is a few very smart anti-social people who weave an ideology that wraps anti-social and self-destructive behaviors in a veneer of morality. Then naive young people who want to do good fall for it, but they are not too worried about the obvious negative results.
Most of the people believe that they are doing good, but they reject any evidence that shows bad results. The fact that they get angry at people who point to the bad results is very telling.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/descent-into-a-man-made-hell
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/is-green-activism-based-on-good-intentions
You made my week! Thank you for the great work! Next highlight will be a completely different Cabinet of fresh, new, clear thinking, freedom loving, America First Patriots being confirmed/appointed👊🧹🗽🇺🇸
Thanks, but don't tempt us here, Dave.
Otherwise, for example, we could take a one minute clip of this 70s song and do some real damage with videos of UXB's (aka EVs) who suffered an "uncontrolled chemical reaction" (aka fire) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqsYNc_M988
Just sayin'
;)
Do it!
Yes, make that happen!
Fantastic! The guy throwing away the crybabies’ signs was the best, until you ended with the pic of the women famous for wailing after Trump won in 2016. That pic never gets old!
Love the smell of liberal minds exploding in the morning. Mmmmm
Thanks!
That woman will never live that down.
Cameras everywhere. Not just the CCP in China!
Um, no. Just no. Maybe it's just been so long since you did any radio theory that you've forgotten the underlying physical law - there is no free lunch. Every resonant circuit has a Q factor, that is, it has losses. Extracting energy makes it run down, just like anything else. (I was trained as a Broadcast Tech 50 years ago and retired from Analog Devices last November).
My dearly departed husband was an electrical engineer. Awful joke, his batteries ran down. I wonder what he would have thought of your post. I don't have the education to evaluate it. Do you have the patent?
Not electrical engineers.
Where can we see one of these in action at industrial scale (say capable of generating say >250MW)?
I can answer that."Any day now".
And if you ask him 10yrs from now it will still be "Any day now".
However if you finance him with a check for $100k he will guarantee you it will be "Any day now if not sooner".