All green environmental energy and economics plans will be successful but only once ~7.5 billion humans are removed.
That is the goal, they have always talked openly of it, that is why they oppose nuclear.
“In fact, giving society cheap, abundant energy at this point would be the moral equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Paul Ehrlich
He was back on TV last January still spouting the same crap.
I say we eliminate them first.
Or start planning for Climate Change POLICY Crimes Against Humanity trials, to be held in the poorest African nation with all the guilty sentenced to subsistence farming.
I want to see Trudeau, Kerry, Biden, finish their lives pulling a plow.
We are trying to do our part to put the plasma torch to their Eco-Statist ideology.
We've often thought of the paradox you note - of those who state "failure to 'act' on 'climate change' is a 'crime against humanity'. If there ever were such trials, we like your idea for the Africa venue. We'd put Jusper Machogu in charge of their subsistence farming. (see his Twitter videos, weeding maize by hand with a hoe https://twitter.com/JusperMachogu/status/1642391693075836928?s=20 )
Trudeau is still young. Jusper could get a lot out of him....
Once fusion power becomes a reality and fixes all this, I know we can count on the environmentalists to oppose it. It’s not actually about saving the environment. It’s about power.
Even the crazy fastest paths to commercialization realistically possible (>1 decade, vs.? 3-5 decades?) gives them too much time to destroy the potential for 5+ billion to reach our living standards.
We will not stand by the side of the road quietly while that happens.
The fronts in this battle are starting to show themselves worldwide (e.g. Netherlands, Canada, Western vs. Eastern EU, Africa, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, all of which we've noted).
The time to deal with this ideology is now. Not 10 or 30 years from now. Too many human lives will be unnecessarily constrained (or worse) in the interim.
Since Earth entered the Quaternary Age (circa 2.5 million years ago), its climate was in quasi eternal _Ice Ages_ (the last one lasted 100,000 years!), with some 10,000-ish years balmy climates in between.
If the current "hot" climate can break this cycle and keep it for a 20,000 or more years, we may start to call it for a proper "Antropocene Epoch".
Eco-alarmists that ignore such facts and keep preaching for Climate Doom need to have a more hands-on approach to be more helpful. Be it working with Missionaries in Africa or planting more trees, instead of disrupting sports events and blocking transit just to "feel good" for themselves.
I used to laugh at the "Save the Whales" people. Save this, save that. But don't kill the whales, please. The orcas attacking the boats must have decided that enough is enough!
The A-holes forcing these asinine policies know exactly what they are doing. They are communists, on the mission of totally overthrowing the current society. They believe that if they can destroy the present system, serfs will come begging them to make things better, and give them unlimited power they crave. We are on a slippery slope with 535 elected "representatives" writing laws that give career bureaucrats the power to destroy everything and everyone that does work.
When it goes splat under the weight of its “unsustainability”, the world will push “environmentalism” back to a good place. We’re shoving it hard from behind.....
I appreciate your message. I’d like to clarify a very common misconception where some renewable source is compared with a 24/7 firm source. For example, you quote Bloomberg--
A conventional 1-gigawatt nuclear reactor operating on 1,000 acres produces the same amount of energy as a wind farm spanning 100,000 acres.
This Is is not a helpful comparison--the wind energy is variable and may be absent for a few days. The nuclear energy is firm and will be present 24/7 when needed. Renewable sources cannot actually meet the demands of homes and businesses without some dispatchable 24/7 source that can fill in the gaps between actual demand and the variable sources. In most cases today, this gap-filling is done with natural gas. Variable and firm energy are not equivalent.
The reality that 100% renewables does not mean 100% Clean Firm Carbon Free Energy (CFE) is well explained by the 24-7 Carbon Free Energy Compact. See
Great point. Thx for the comment! We were simply trying to show the differences in energy density and land needed to (theoretically) generate same energy. You are correct on the junk power absent 24/7 baseload.
Thanks for the kind words. Our founder and head writer is still working last year of his career as an environmental professional. Couple other team members are as well.
We will keep the present pace of publication through y/e 2023. We’ll then evaluate going behind a pay wall some time in latter half of 2024. When we retire, environMENTAL will be our full time passion and focus, what we've been chomping at the bit to do (as Doomberg says "the work of our lives"), and we will publish more frequently.
Ok, Jed. Tell us your alternative. The one that doesn’t march humanity backwards and thwart billions in the developing world from reaching your living standards. Go ahead. Pay it out for all of us to see. The floor is yours.
Oh, I have no alternative, I'm full doomer. We're totally fucked. My only interest is making narrative sense out of it. I could spin out some idealistic nonsense about what would need to happen, but the truth is that whatever I say, it's not going to happen. We're all along for the ride.
We're not f'd. We have many major environmental, energy, economic, and natural resource challenges. We will be forced to change.
Overpopulation isn't going to be a problem. 5 billion more people living at avg. U.S. living standards isn't going to cause humanity's extinction or the exhaustion of resources or loss of ecosystem carrying capacity, IF managed wisely.
We are facing future resource scarcity, eroding energy ROI, marine resource and many other issues.
All of these could be managed with wisdom but only with a) affordable/reliable/abundant/on-demand energy (electricity & transport fuels), b) property rights, c) the rule of law and d) corruption kept below X ("x" varies by country/region/system). At minimum.
It would be much easier if all of these were not at present under assault.
We can do this. Don't despair, or panic. But, status quo won't cut it. We'll give you that, Jed.
I think you vastly overestimate the efficacy of the liberal environmentalist movement. Concern about global warming etc., may dominate some media spaces, but they've shown themselves to be fairly incapable of actually posing a meaningful threat to fossil capital. I guess that you think that there should be no opposition at all, even a symbolic one, but given that the dialectical sweep of history demands that whenever a force arises, a counterforce will arise to oppose it, I think you can feel good that the counterforce against fossil capital has shown itself to be wildly inept and also operating from the same capitalist assumptions as the industry itself. Since environmentalists are so weak, I could accuse you of punching down, but since they are also mostly upper class white people, I won't.
As to whether or not we're, ahem, screwed... Well, I'll just say I hope you're right because I'm not a sadist, but capitalism and American hegemony has already immiserated billions around the globe, and every time a so-called "natural" disaster unfolds it makes people's lives worse. You may think that carbon-driven global warming has nothing to do with the increased severity of such disasters, but you'd be empirically wrong and, I want to emphasize this: I don't debate empirics, because objective reality doesn't bend according to how we perceive it.
Jed, we’re fuel agnostic, not conjoined to FF’s as you seem to perceive.
Regarding your last :”You may think that carbon-driven global warming has nothing to do with the increased severity of such disasters, but you'd be empirically wrong and, I want to emphasize this: I don't debate empirics, because objective reality doesn't bend according to how we perceive it.”
With few exceptions, there is no “increased severity of such disasters” that cannot be accounted for via more structures and people in harm’s way. And, even with that, deaths from natural disasters have plummeted by about 98% over the last 125 years.
So it’s ironically convenient for you to say you “don’t debate empirics” and “reality doesn’t bend according to how we perceive it”, don’t you think?
The Green Energy people are aware that Americans have not bought into the Green Energy scam so now they have proposed blocking some of the suns heat from reaching the earth. I think they are truly demented. I think there is a place for them,, but the only thing we can do is ignore them and hope they will go away.
But for the PM2.5/PM10, SO2, NOX, mercury, etc., we already tried that. When wood then coal made up 99% of global primary energy in the northern hemisphere for 2+ centuries.
We don't like this geoengineering idea any better (so far).
If you upend energy, agriculture all at once, they will make Mao and Stalin look like pikers.
I mean, we’d have to invent new words to describe people who are responsible for a billion (s) deaths?
The word genocide is now meaningless thanks to these people because now everything is genocide including “I don’t think men should compete in women’s sports”, so we’d need a new word.
The Greenies are out in droves now hyping a Zaporizhzhia NPP explosion in Ukraine. They are just rubbing their hands together in glee, hoping & praying, that there will be six Chernobyl's, one right after the other, and all of Europe will succumb to a giant radioactive cloud.
Lot's of theories about False Flag Events being planned, even claims Ukraine has planted explosives on the reactor containment domes. The only way you would make those reactors release significant radiation to the environment is by dropping a radiological bomb on top of them. Shelling would do a lot of expensive damage but radiation leakage would be nil to small & localized. There is an IAEA team there which presumably is set up to maintain water cooling flow to the pressure vessels and spent fuel ponds. It's not rocket science.
But the False Flag that is most likely is one perpetrated by Malthusian Bankster creeps who are pushing this Worldwide gargantuan Wind/Solar/Hydrogen/Batteries energy poverty plan. And whom despise Nuclear power. They already did that with the TMI meltdown:
"Galen Winsor makes a startling statement; he claims that the Three Mile Island event was no accident. He states that the GE three of Gregory C. Minor, Richard B. Hubbard, and Dale G. Bridenbaugh wrote the script. This would sound incredibly far fetched without the almost impossibly coincidental timing of "The China Syndrome" still playing in movie theaters at the time of the accident, the unbelievable coincidence of a line in the movie about contaminating an area the size of Pennsylvania (the same state where TMI is located), and the still troubling unknown regarding how the feed pump isolation valves on the back-up feed water pump just happened to be shut (supposedly due to a "maintenance error") when the primary pump tripped off line."
some very interesting discussion in the comments. i.e.:
"Rich Lentz says: August 1, 2013 at 12:07 PM Other coincidences:
Date/Time of initial criticality of TMI-II – March 28, 1978 @ 04:00:00
Date/time of accident (on plant computer) March 28, 1979 @ 04:00:00.037 (Note: the plant computer has a 3 millisecond cycle time to scan all points)
The main story in the Paxton Herald paper (A free paper that was mostly adds and a classified listing that you picked up to find/sell stuff but VERY anti-nuclear) that week and released before the accident, was about the major accident that was going to happen at TMI in the very near future..."
And for the Fukushima meltdowns, the MSM was all 24/7 covering the disastrous Tsunami & Earthquake which killed 20k people, and made 320k homeless, but once the Fukushima problem began they were all over the Nuclear incident like flies on shit, completely ignoring the much larger Tsunami disaster. I like how MSM outlets still like to imply that the 20k deaths were caused by the nuclear meltdowns. i.e. "The Fukushima disaster in Japan, with 3 nuclear meltdowns and 20,000 people died".
Many people are disconnected from the natural world and the outdoors and live in high density areas.
They are fed the pablum of the press, the internet, and social media, so they don't know differently - many want to stay numb and follow the leader; or are just happy to survive, paycheck to paycheck, or Biden check to Biden check.
And for anyone who is unaware of the fact, BlackRock is one of the world's preeminent asset management firms and a premier provider of investment management, so as far from a "climate change denier" organisation as it is possible to get.
We keep being lectured on the foolishness of relying on oil and gas as finite resources, how finite are copper, nickel, neodymium and lithium?
Clearly the existence of the giant gas planets demonstrates that methane can certainly be produced without any biological action, so what is to stop it creating linked chains when subjected to heat and pressure, especially when catalyst minerals may be present?
Yes and 0 matches for uranium or nuclear in the paper. Wind 12 matches. Solar 6 matches. Lithium 11 matches. Hydrogen 1 match. This is the same BlackRock that a Project Veritas video leaked one of them just lovin the Ukraine War and Energy supply disruption "because volatility = high profits".
Nicely done, thank you. A small comment: Van Zalk's land use for hydro is somewhat misleading. He calculated his results using such reservoirs as Lake Mead, Lake Powell, Bonneville and the Columbia Dams, and I don't dispute his data. But, hydro power today is can also be developed without taking any additional land. We added 24 megawatts in Colorado by modifying existing drop structures in irrigation systems to accommodate hydro. No, 24 MW isn't much in the grand scheme of things, but those same 24 MW for a wind farm would require about 24 square kilometers!
Yet another example of environmental forgetfulness is the steel needed to build a wind tower or solar farm. 3x and 10x steel is needed for wind and solar versus nuclear. For natural gas, those numbers are 6x and 20x. Getting to "net-zero" using wind or solar would require unprecedented expansion of the steel industry and, along with it, a lot more coal mined and burned.
Is it possible to have some hyperlinks inserted into this piece please, to help with research?thanks.
Hi, Doc. Lots of links in the piece. Is it possible they don't show up well on a mobile device or laptop due to display settings?
Is there a particular link you're looking for?
Thanks for reading!
All green environmental energy and economics plans will be successful but only once ~7.5 billion humans are removed.
That is the goal, they have always talked openly of it, that is why they oppose nuclear.
“In fact, giving society cheap, abundant energy at this point would be the moral equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Paul Ehrlich
He was back on TV last January still spouting the same crap.
I say we eliminate them first.
Or start planning for Climate Change POLICY Crimes Against Humanity trials, to be held in the poorest African nation with all the guilty sentenced to subsistence farming.
I want to see Trudeau, Kerry, Biden, finish their lives pulling a plow.
That Ehrlich quote always makes us shiver.
We are trying to do our part to put the plasma torch to their Eco-Statist ideology.
We've often thought of the paradox you note - of those who state "failure to 'act' on 'climate change' is a 'crime against humanity'. If there ever were such trials, we like your idea for the Africa venue. We'd put Jusper Machogu in charge of their subsistence farming. (see his Twitter videos, weeding maize by hand with a hoe https://twitter.com/JusperMachogu/status/1642391693075836928?s=20 )
Trudeau is still young. Jusper could get a lot out of him....
He for sure would last a month at least.
Kerry, Dave Suzuki, Schwab, maybe a day, but that’s ok we can be merciful
Once fusion power becomes a reality and fixes all this, I know we can count on the environmentalists to oppose it. It’s not actually about saving the environment. It’s about power.
Even the crazy fastest paths to commercialization realistically possible (>1 decade, vs.? 3-5 decades?) gives them too much time to destroy the potential for 5+ billion to reach our living standards.
We will not stand by the side of the road quietly while that happens.
The fronts in this battle are starting to show themselves worldwide (e.g. Netherlands, Canada, Western vs. Eastern EU, Africa, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, all of which we've noted).
The time to deal with this ideology is now. Not 10 or 30 years from now. Too many human lives will be unnecessarily constrained (or worse) in the interim.
Since Earth entered the Quaternary Age (circa 2.5 million years ago), its climate was in quasi eternal _Ice Ages_ (the last one lasted 100,000 years!), with some 10,000-ish years balmy climates in between.
If the current "hot" climate can break this cycle and keep it for a 20,000 or more years, we may start to call it for a proper "Antropocene Epoch".
Eco-alarmists that ignore such facts and keep preaching for Climate Doom need to have a more hands-on approach to be more helpful. Be it working with Missionaries in Africa or planting more trees, instead of disrupting sports events and blocking transit just to "feel good" for themselves.
Well said!
Quite honestly, the whale s and birds are breaking my heart! And the greenies don't seem to care at all!!!
Those are necessary casualties on the road to utopia just like all those britons in energy poverty.
All must die for the greater good.
I used to laugh at the "Save the Whales" people. Save this, save that. But don't kill the whales, please. The orcas attacking the boats must have decided that enough is enough!
Well done, environMENTAL.
The A-holes forcing these asinine policies know exactly what they are doing. They are communists, on the mission of totally overthrowing the current society. They believe that if they can destroy the present system, serfs will come begging them to make things better, and give them unlimited power they crave. We are on a slippery slope with 535 elected "representatives" writing laws that give career bureaucrats the power to destroy everything and everyone that does work.
When it goes splat under the weight of its “unsustainability”, the world will push “environmentalism” back to a good place. We’re shoving it hard from behind.....
I appreciate your message. I’d like to clarify a very common misconception where some renewable source is compared with a 24/7 firm source. For example, you quote Bloomberg--
A conventional 1-gigawatt nuclear reactor operating on 1,000 acres produces the same amount of energy as a wind farm spanning 100,000 acres.
This Is is not a helpful comparison--the wind energy is variable and may be absent for a few days. The nuclear energy is firm and will be present 24/7 when needed. Renewable sources cannot actually meet the demands of homes and businesses without some dispatchable 24/7 source that can fill in the gaps between actual demand and the variable sources. In most cases today, this gap-filling is done with natural gas. Variable and firm energy are not equivalent.
The reality that 100% renewables does not mean 100% Clean Firm Carbon Free Energy (CFE) is well explained by the 24-7 Carbon Free Energy Compact. See
HTTPS://gocarbonfree247.com
I’ll be glad to continue this discussion.
Thanks
Gary Nelson
Great point. Thx for the comment! We were simply trying to show the differences in energy density and land needed to (theoretically) generate same energy. You are correct on the junk power absent 24/7 baseload.
Wonderful article. Just wish you guys would publish more frequently. All your stuff is amazing.
Thanks for the kind words. Our founder and head writer is still working last year of his career as an environmental professional. Couple other team members are as well.
We will keep the present pace of publication through y/e 2023. We’ll then evaluate going behind a pay wall some time in latter half of 2024. When we retire, environMENTAL will be our full time passion and focus, what we've been chomping at the bit to do (as Doomberg says "the work of our lives"), and we will publish more frequently.
Hang in there… we’re just getting started!
Sounds good. Looking forward to it. Thanks for the update.
Keep slurping that hydrocarbon corpse juice, my brethren.
https://thespouter.substack.com/p/revised-hydrogen-corpse-juice#details
Ok, Jed. Tell us your alternative. The one that doesn’t march humanity backwards and thwart billions in the developing world from reaching your living standards. Go ahead. Pay it out for all of us to see. The floor is yours.
Oh, I have no alternative, I'm full doomer. We're totally fucked. My only interest is making narrative sense out of it. I could spin out some idealistic nonsense about what would need to happen, but the truth is that whatever I say, it's not going to happen. We're all along for the ride.
We're not f'd. We have many major environmental, energy, economic, and natural resource challenges. We will be forced to change.
Overpopulation isn't going to be a problem. 5 billion more people living at avg. U.S. living standards isn't going to cause humanity's extinction or the exhaustion of resources or loss of ecosystem carrying capacity, IF managed wisely.
We are facing future resource scarcity, eroding energy ROI, marine resource and many other issues.
All of these could be managed with wisdom but only with a) affordable/reliable/abundant/on-demand energy (electricity & transport fuels), b) property rights, c) the rule of law and d) corruption kept below X ("x" varies by country/region/system). At minimum.
It would be much easier if all of these were not at present under assault.
We can do this. Don't despair, or panic. But, status quo won't cut it. We'll give you that, Jed.
I've been thinking about your phrase "fuel agnostic" and realized I'm fuel religous. Fuel spiritual.
Ok. Got it. Thx the clarification.
We’re after clarity here, not “consensus”.
For the record, we think you are wrong. We are not f’d. Unless, that is, Eco-Statism isn’t crushed.
I think you vastly overestimate the efficacy of the liberal environmentalist movement. Concern about global warming etc., may dominate some media spaces, but they've shown themselves to be fairly incapable of actually posing a meaningful threat to fossil capital. I guess that you think that there should be no opposition at all, even a symbolic one, but given that the dialectical sweep of history demands that whenever a force arises, a counterforce will arise to oppose it, I think you can feel good that the counterforce against fossil capital has shown itself to be wildly inept and also operating from the same capitalist assumptions as the industry itself. Since environmentalists are so weak, I could accuse you of punching down, but since they are also mostly upper class white people, I won't.
As to whether or not we're, ahem, screwed... Well, I'll just say I hope you're right because I'm not a sadist, but capitalism and American hegemony has already immiserated billions around the globe, and every time a so-called "natural" disaster unfolds it makes people's lives worse. You may think that carbon-driven global warming has nothing to do with the increased severity of such disasters, but you'd be empirically wrong and, I want to emphasize this: I don't debate empirics, because objective reality doesn't bend according to how we perceive it.
Jed, we’re fuel agnostic, not conjoined to FF’s as you seem to perceive.
Regarding your last :”You may think that carbon-driven global warming has nothing to do with the increased severity of such disasters, but you'd be empirically wrong and, I want to emphasize this: I don't debate empirics, because objective reality doesn't bend according to how we perceive it.”
With few exceptions, there is no “increased severity of such disasters” that cannot be accounted for via more structures and people in harm’s way. And, even with that, deaths from natural disasters have plummeted by about 98% over the last 125 years.
So it’s ironically convenient for you to say you “don’t debate empirics” and “reality doesn’t bend according to how we perceive it”, don’t you think?
Thanks for your comments. They are helpful!
I think that position is going to become more and more difficult to defend over time, so I'll continue to follow your work with interest.
The Green Energy people are aware that Americans have not bought into the Green Energy scam so now they have proposed blocking some of the suns heat from reaching the earth. I think they are truly demented. I think there is a place for them,, but the only thing we can do is ignore them and hope they will go away.
If they actually prepare to try it sane people are going to have to stop them by whatever means necessary.
“With extreme prejudice” is the phrase.
After the fact, exactly what do you do with the greatest mass murderers in history.
It will have to be public, televised and extraordinarily painful, go into some European museums and retrieve some instruments from the dark ages.
But for the PM2.5/PM10, SO2, NOX, mercury, etc., we already tried that. When wood then coal made up 99% of global primary energy in the northern hemisphere for 2+ centuries.
We don't like this geoengineering idea any better (so far).
Hubris too small a word to describe these people.
If you upend energy, agriculture all at once, they will make Mao and Stalin look like pikers.
I mean, we’d have to invent new words to describe people who are responsible for a billion (s) deaths?
The word genocide is now meaningless thanks to these people because now everything is genocide including “I don’t think men should compete in women’s sports”, so we’d need a new word.
They aren’t going away.
The Greenies are out in droves now hyping a Zaporizhzhia NPP explosion in Ukraine. They are just rubbing their hands together in glee, hoping & praying, that there will be six Chernobyl's, one right after the other, and all of Europe will succumb to a giant radioactive cloud.
Lot's of theories about False Flag Events being planned, even claims Ukraine has planted explosives on the reactor containment domes. The only way you would make those reactors release significant radiation to the environment is by dropping a radiological bomb on top of them. Shelling would do a lot of expensive damage but radiation leakage would be nil to small & localized. There is an IAEA team there which presumably is set up to maintain water cooling flow to the pressure vessels and spent fuel ponds. It's not rocket science.
But the False Flag that is most likely is one perpetrated by Malthusian Bankster creeps who are pushing this Worldwide gargantuan Wind/Solar/Hydrogen/Batteries energy poverty plan. And whom despise Nuclear power. They already did that with the TMI meltdown:
Was TMI a movie script? Galen Winsor:
youtube.com/watch?v=q5uXzM_azWI
"Galen Winsor makes a startling statement; he claims that the Three Mile Island event was no accident. He states that the GE three of Gregory C. Minor, Richard B. Hubbard, and Dale G. Bridenbaugh wrote the script. This would sound incredibly far fetched without the almost impossibly coincidental timing of "The China Syndrome" still playing in movie theaters at the time of the accident, the unbelievable coincidence of a line in the movie about contaminating an area the size of Pennsylvania (the same state where TMI is located), and the still troubling unknown regarding how the feed pump isolation valves on the back-up feed water pump just happened to be shut (supposedly due to a "maintenance error") when the primary pump tripped off line."
atomicinsights.com/was-three-mile-island-an-accident/
some very interesting discussion in the comments. i.e.:
"Rich Lentz says: August 1, 2013 at 12:07 PM Other coincidences:
Date/Time of initial criticality of TMI-II – March 28, 1978 @ 04:00:00
Date/time of accident (on plant computer) March 28, 1979 @ 04:00:00.037 (Note: the plant computer has a 3 millisecond cycle time to scan all points)
The main story in the Paxton Herald paper (A free paper that was mostly adds and a classified listing that you picked up to find/sell stuff but VERY anti-nuclear) that week and released before the accident, was about the major accident that was going to happen at TMI in the very near future..."
And for the Fukushima meltdowns, the MSM was all 24/7 covering the disastrous Tsunami & Earthquake which killed 20k people, and made 320k homeless, but once the Fukushima problem began they were all over the Nuclear incident like flies on shit, completely ignoring the much larger Tsunami disaster. I like how MSM outlets still like to imply that the 20k deaths were caused by the nuclear meltdowns. i.e. "The Fukushima disaster in Japan, with 3 nuclear meltdowns and 20,000 people died".
MSM. Nuff said.
Excellent Article.
Many people are disconnected from the natural world and the outdoors and live in high density areas.
They are fed the pablum of the press, the internet, and social media, so they don't know differently - many want to stay numb and follow the leader; or are just happy to survive, paycheck to paycheck, or Biden check to Biden check.
Ain’t that the truth…
Graphic on page 18 says it all.
https://www.blackrock.com/uk/literature/interim-report/blackrock-energy-and-resources-income-trust-plc-interim-report.pdf
And for anyone who is unaware of the fact, BlackRock is one of the world's preeminent asset management firms and a premier provider of investment management, so as far from a "climate change denier" organisation as it is possible to get.
We keep being lectured on the foolishness of relying on oil and gas as finite resources, how finite are copper, nickel, neodymium and lithium?
They’re finite, too!
Further research indicates that abiotic oil may not be as imaginary as we have been led to believe.
https://www.petroleum.co.uk/abiotic-oil-formation
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/215/1/012103/pdf
Clearly the existence of the giant gas planets demonstrates that methane can certainly be produced without any biological action, so what is to stop it creating linked chains when subjected to heat and pressure, especially when catalyst minerals may be present?
Interesting...
It’s an intriguing concept for sure.
Same
Yes and 0 matches for uranium or nuclear in the paper. Wind 12 matches. Solar 6 matches. Lithium 11 matches. Hydrogen 1 match. This is the same BlackRock that a Project Veritas video leaked one of them just lovin the Ukraine War and Energy supply disruption "because volatility = high profits".
“recovering environmentalist heretic Bjorn Lomborg...”
That made my actually LOL. well done and great article.
Thx!!
Nicely done, thank you. A small comment: Van Zalk's land use for hydro is somewhat misleading. He calculated his results using such reservoirs as Lake Mead, Lake Powell, Bonneville and the Columbia Dams, and I don't dispute his data. But, hydro power today is can also be developed without taking any additional land. We added 24 megawatts in Colorado by modifying existing drop structures in irrigation systems to accommodate hydro. No, 24 MW isn't much in the grand scheme of things, but those same 24 MW for a wind farm would require about 24 square kilometers!
Yet another example of environmental forgetfulness is the steel needed to build a wind tower or solar farm. 3x and 10x steel is needed for wind and solar versus nuclear. For natural gas, those numbers are 6x and 20x. Getting to "net-zero" using wind or solar would require unprecedented expansion of the steel industry and, along with it, a lot more coal mined and burned.
Great point!
If the first presidential primary wasn’t in Iowa the methanol from corn madness would have died under its own weight years ago.
It ain't methanol, it's ethanol. Methanol is made by distillation not fermentation. Fermentation to make a biofuel is just plain stupid.
Never thought of that take. Has a lot of merit. Thanks, Lee!