Good news, everybody! A new report from the eggheads at Oxford University assures us that switching to renewables will actually save us trillions of dollars!
You heard that right. It won’t cost us trillions of dollars to build out a completely new global energy grid infrastructure based on technology that is still under development and then to switch the entire global economy onto it. No, don’t be silly! It’s going to save us trillions of dollars. TRILLIONS, I tell you!
Now, I know what some of you skeptical Corbett Reporteers out there are thinking: how can that be? After all, as The Manhattan Contrarian blog points out in a recent post on the “Cost of the Green Energy Transition,” the disruption to the European gas supply caused by the Ukraine kerfuffle is already wreaking havoc on Europe’s economy, with Germans bracing for a 13% rise in their regulated consumer gas bills this year and UK residents facing a near tripling of their own energy bills. And that’s before the Great Resetters start shutting off the pipes for real and forcing the hoi polloi on to the wind/solar/unicorn fart “green” energy grid.
But why believe the actual economic pain you’re experiencing (heating your own home this winter) when your Oxfordian overlords have big, fat reports (that no one will read) telling you how much money will be saved by switching over to a green energy grid? After all, the BBC and MSN and Nature World News are tripping all over themselves to repeat these findings unquestioningly, so who are you to bring up any of the pesky “facts” that contradict this comforting fairy tale?
Oh, OK, I’ll drop the act. The latest Oxford study—along with the many similar pronouncements made in recent years that the transition onto the green energy grid will be painless (or even profitable)—is easily debunkable propaganda. But it is pernicious propaganda. It’s designed to get the plebes to actively embrace their own enslavement in the name of saving Mother Earth, and—up to this point—it has been remarkably effective in that goal.
In truth, the green energy sustainable enslavement grid is a scam from top to bottom. But it is not simply a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream being sold to a gullible and ignorant public. It’s worse than that. It is a carefully crafted lie that is designed to lead us into our new role as serfs on the neofeudal plantation in the coming green dystopia.
Want to know the details? Let’s dig in.
To access this week’s edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber, please sign in and continue reading below.
Not a Corbett Report member yet? Sign up to BECOME A MEMBER of the website and read the full newsletter or CLICK HERE to access the editorial for free.
|
The Corbett Report Subscriber
|
vol 12 issue 26 (September 25, 2022)
|
|
by James Corbett Good news, everybody! A new report from the eggheads at Oxford University assures us that switching to renewables will actually save us trillions of dollars! You heard that right. It won’t cost us trillions of dollars to build out a completely new global energy grid infrastructure based on technology that is still under development and then to switch the entire global economy onto it. No, don’t be silly! It’s going to save us trillions of dollars. TRILLIONS, I tell you! Now, I know what some of you skeptical Corbett Reporteers out there are thinking: how can that be? After all, as The Manhattan Contrarian blog points out in a recent post on the “Cost of the Green Energy Transition,” the disruption to the European gas supply caused by the Ukraine kerfuffle is already wreaking havoc on Europe’s economy, with Germans bracing for a 13% rise in their regulated consumer gas bills this year and UK residents facing a near tripling of their own energy bills. And that’s before the Great Resetters start shutting off the pipes for real and forcing the hoi polloi on to the wind/solar/unicorn fart “green” energy grid. But why believe the actual economic pain you’re experiencing (heating your own home this winter) when your Oxfordian overlords have big, fat reports (that no one will read) telling you how much money will be saved by switching over to a green energy grid? After all, the BBC and MSN and Nature World News are tripping all over themselves to repeat these findings unquestioningly, so who are you to bring up any of the pesky “facts” that contradict this comforting fairy tale? Oh, OK, I’ll drop the act. The latest Oxford study—along with the many similar pronouncements made in recent years that the transition onto the green energy grid will be painless (or even profitable)—is easily debunkable propaganda. But it is pernicious propaganda. It’s designed to get the plebes to actively embrace their own enslavement in the name of saving Mother Earth, and—up to this point—it has been remarkably effective in that goal. In truth, the green energy sustainable enslavement grid is a scam from top to bottom. But it is not simply a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream being sold to a gullible and ignorant public. It’s worse than that. It is a carefully crafted lie that is designed to lead us into our new role as serfs on the neofeudal plantation in the coming green dystopia. Want to know the details? Let’s dig in. The Green Energy Myth
I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention these last few decades, but the usual cadre of crimatologists, “activists,” sustainable enslavement-pushing banksters and corrupt politicians are desperately trying to sell the public on the idea that windmills, solar panels and unicorn farts are a magical pixie dust capable of transforming the human population from greedy, fat-cat crapitalists raping the planet for fun and profit into peace-loving, Kumbaya communists living in perfect harmony with nature. Believe it or not, they’re lying! Take the latest Oxford study I referred to above, for instance. Bearing the title “Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition,” it starts by simply assuming the truth of the fundamental lie that the entire green myth is constructed upon: “Rapidly decarbonizing the global energy system is critical for addressing climate change.” This is, of course, not true, as I have demonstrated time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. (And again and again and again and again.) But, after simply stating this bald-faced lie as fact, the Oxfordian boffins then have the gall to urinate on your face and tell you it’s raining: “Compared to continuing with a fossil fuel-based system, a rapid green energy transition will likely result in overall net savings of many trillions of dollars—even without accounting for climate damages or co-benefits of climate policy.” As always, I encourage you to read the report for yourself to see how they fabricate the so-called “evidence” for this surprising “conclusion”—though I’m sure you can imagine most of their tricks before you even open the link. First, they abuse blatantly bias-prone models to “estimate” (read: make up) future energy system costs, which, they freely admit, “will change with time due to innovation, competition, public policy, concerns about climate change, and other factors.” Then, after gazing into their magical crystal ball and seeing whatever they want to see with regard to future costs, they use “probabilistic methods” to “view energy pathways through the lens of placing bets on technologies.” I kid you not, this “empirically grounded” and totally “scientific” study tells us, in effect, that if we’re betting men we should put all our chips on green . . . “green” energy, that is. Go on, read it for yourself. But here’s the rub: these types of “scientific” studies only come off as believable to the most credulous Joe Sixpacks and Jane Soccermoms out there, the type who get their news from CNN and believe everything Al Gore tells them. These pithy platitudes promising perfectly painless energy transitions—even when they are dressed up in the language of empiricism and bear the imprimatur of Oxford University—are not credible in the least to anyone with a technical background in these areas. Indeed, the Oxford study and similar utopian predictions of green energy transitions rely on a stream of untenable assumptions and faulty logic. For example, as Manhattan Contrarian points out in his blog post on “Cost of the Green Energy Transition,” the Oxford researchers take the downward price trend of lithium-ion (li-ion) batteries over the past two decades and extrapolate those figures out based on the assumption that they will continue falling indefinitely without limit. As the study even explicitly says, “We know of no empirical evidence supporting floor costs [on green technology deployment] and do not impose them.” This is so certifiably insane it’s difficult to know where to begin. First, let’s interrogate the actual economic argument here, shall we? The researchers tip their hand when they show the current (2020) price of li-ion batteries as being about $100/kWh and “forecast” that it will drop to about $20/kWh by 2050. In actuality, the 2020 price for such batteries is (according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory) about $350/kWh (see Figure ES-2), and those prices are predicted to drop to about $150/kWh by 2050. If that forecast is accurate, the actual 2050 price for li-ion batteries would still be 50% higher than the “current” price used in the Oxford study model. The discrepancy between these figures, Manhattan Contrarian points out, “appears to lie mainly in elements of a real-world battery installation other than the core battery itself, like a building to house it, devices to convert AC to DC and back, grid connections, ‘balance of plant,’ and so forth.” In other words, the study’s authors didn’t look in any way at the real-world cost of actually installing, connecting, using and maintaining these batteries; they simply looked at the raw cost of the battery itself and ignored the rest. This methodology becomes even more problematic when you learn that Energy & Environmental Science actually published a study in 2018 estimating the real-world cost of installing and running a lithium-ion battery storage system capable of handling a US energy grid that ran on 80% wind and solar. Their conclusion? It would cost a staggering $2.5 trillion to get such a system up and running! Oddly, the Oxford study doesn’t take these costs into account at all. They just tell you that the battery price will fall to $20/kWh and leave it at that. And what of the materials required to construct these lithium-ion batteries and solar panels and windmills and other green energy components? In case you were under the impression that the components for these technologies just magically materialized out of fairy dust in an environmentally-friendly way and then disappeared back into the ether after these installations break down, here’s a 72-minute reality check from Simon Michaux, an associate professor of geometallurgy at the Geological Survey of Finland, in which he argues that:
Perhaps this is why, in point of fact, lithium prices are surging right now, with prices tripling in the last year in places like China, not plummeting as the Oxford study predicts. But the green energy myth goes well beyond the argument from economic impracticality. It isn’t just that, in direct contradiction to the hogwash put out by the Oxford researchers and their ilk, such a transition will not save us trillions of dollars but actually cost us trillions of dollars. And it isn’t just that—as country after country after country is now finding out—the transition to green energy production is pushing people further into poverty as they struggle to pay their increasing energy bills. It’s not even that the green energy transition is provably already putting a strain on power grids that are struggling to keep up with electricity demand. It’s that these “green” energy systems are not really green at all. In fact, wide-scale implementation of these renewable power technologies is actively harmful to the environment. Take those lithium-ion batteries we examined earlier. The lithium for these batteries comes from a mining process that is wreaking untold havoc on habitats around the world. In Chile, for example, a full 65% of the water in the region surrounding the Salar de Atacama salt flat is being consumed by lithium miners, who require 500,000 gallons of water for every tonne of lithium produced. And in Tibet, a toxic chemical leak from a lithium mine caused a mass die-off of fish and livestock in a nearby villlage, sparking mass protests. And that’s to say nothing about the bevy of toxic materials found in solar panels that leach into the environment and will eventually need to be disposed of. Or the long-known fact that wind turbines “take a toll on birds,” contributing to hundreds of thousands of avian deaths every year in the US alone. Or the oft-neglected environmental destruction that will come from clearing the millions of acres of land that will be required to run the solar and wind farms of the Oxfordians increasingly dystopian vision. Are you starting to get the picture? Yes, there is much more that could (and should!) be written about the green energy myth, but let’s boil it down to a soundbite for those poor souls suffering from today’s short attention span: So-called “green” energy is not about saving the planet. It’s about controlling the planet. The Green Energy Reality
I realize a certain portion of the population—having been programmed by half a century of over-the-top, anti-human propaganda—will have a single, predictable, knee-jerk reaction to anyone deconstructing the green energy myth: “You must be a Big Oil shill!” It’s particularly funny when the accusation is leveled at me, since I literally wrote the documentary on How Big Oil Conquered the World. But even more to the point, I wrote the documentary on Why Big Oil Conquered the World, and those who have seen that documentary will know that the greatest trick the oligarchy ever pulled was convincing the public that all they were concerned with was oil. As those who delve deeply into the subject inevitably discover, the takeover of the world by these well-connected oiligarchs wasn’t about oil at all. It was about power. This is precisely why the Rockefellers have divested from oil and why Saudi Arabia is trying to pivot to their robot citizens and Neom nonsense and why BP and Exxon and all the other members of the oiligarchy are setting “net zero” pledges. It’s because the green energy system of the future (and thus the global economy that relies on it) will be even more strictly controlled in the future, and those who are bringing this controlled, technocratic slave state of the future into reality are seeking to monopolize and control the resources of the earth. To understand what is really happening here, we have to look past the low-level green energy propaganda that is meant for the fluoride-addled normies to lap up and look to the higher-level propaganda that is intended to bring the New World Order middle management up to speed on the new power paradigm. As usual, there’s no better place to turn for precisely that type of propaganda than the pages of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. In a recent article on “The Green Upheaval,” they plainly admit what the green energy push is really about: “Talk of a smooth transition to clean energy is fanciful: there is no way that the world can avoid major upheavals as it remakes the entire energy system, which is the lifeblood of the global economy and underpins the geopolitical order.” No, the green energy transition is not going to be a happy clappy cakewalk into a fantasy future, as the activists promise. And that particular rainbow will not lead to a multi-trillion-dollar pot of gold, as the Oxfordians promise. What it will do is radically upend the lives and livelihoods of every person on the planet by taking away the one thing that has done more than anything else in all of human history to empower the population to proclaim their independence from the oligarchs: access to cheap energy. Yes, the renewable energy grid will utterly fail to provide the energy needed to power our modern postindustrial society. That’s precisely the point. By making energy even more scarce, those with their hands on the energy spigot will have the ultimate control over society, deciding when, where and how to allocate scarce energy supplies to the public. Europeans who are wondering how they will be able to afford to heat their homes and businesses this winter are just starting to understand what this new “green” economy will really look like for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. It is not difficult to discern the contours of the world that these energy transition advocates are driving us towards. It is a world in which all of the things we take for granted—the ability to travel freely, to buy and sell independently, to heat our own homes and even to turn on a lightbulb—will be privileges carefully rationed by our neofeudal overlords. Think you’ll be able to control the thermostat in your own home once the new economic overlords have their “smart” “green” energy grid in place? Think again. Think you’ll be able to eat as you normally do once the green mafia is in power? Think again. Think you’ll be able to use your hard-earned digital energy credits to buy whatever you like or travel wherever you want in the technocratic tyranny of the future? Think again. Welcome to the Green Leap Forward, where you will own nothing, live in a hovel, face the possibility of freezing to death every winter and struggle to make ends meet . . . but you’ll be happy! After all, you’ll be allowed to eat ze bugs and use the energy ration that the global government doles out for you each day. And if that’s not enough, then you can keep warm by vigorously patting yourself on the back for helping protect humanity from the wrath of the weather gods. You’re saving the earth! Where We Go From Here
If you’re here reading these words, then perhaps you already know where the green energy myth is taking us. You know about the Great Reset and Agenda 2030 and the push for a global technocracy. You probably even know precisely how they’re going to convince the public to go along with this insanity. You know about the “green” propaganda and the “sustainable development” scam, and you know that the climate scam will be the cornerstone for the global carbon tax that will be the backbone of the de facto global government. Perhaps you take hope from the resistance to this green enslavement agenda that is appearing around the world. Perhaps you take comfort seeing the Dutch farmers and the Sri Lankan farmers and the Argentinian farmers and the Irish farmers and their farmer friends around the globe rising up. Perhaps you take heart knowing that, with so many livelihoods throughout the world being threatened by this sick, anti-human agenda, the agenda will be derailed. And perhaps you take pity on the slumbering masses who are finally starting to rise in protest on the streets of Prague and Leipzig and London. The slumbering masses are awakening! I, too, think that these movements are, overall, a positive development . . . . . . but by themselves they are not enough. What are the farmers protesting for, after all? The right to dump glyphosate and other toxic chemicals on their GMO crops? And what are energy price protesters hoping to accomplish, exactly? Are they merely demanding that the government step in with more subsidies and price controls to ease the economic burden of the oh-so-necessary green energy transition? No, unless and until we start confronting this myth at its roots, we will continue to plunge headlong into the dystopic nightmare of the Great Resetters and their ilk. Yes, we do need an alternative energy system to power the economy of free humanity. We do need to abandon the system that chains our economic livelihood to the whims of the oil cartel and puts us at the mercy of the government-sanctioned energy cartel. We do need a decentralized system that takes advantage of every technological development for creating and storing our own power, so we can truly get off the grid. But that is not what is being sold to us in the name of the green energy hoax. The pushers of the Agenda 2030 nightmare do not want us to be independent and free; they want us to be even more tightly controlled and surveilled than before. Green energy is a scam. It has nothing to do with saving the planet. It has everything to do with artificially limiting our access to power and thus making the population more dependent than ever on the oligarchs and their systems of control. We must reject this racket and all of the pseudoscientific nonsense that is being used to push it on the public. Spread the word. That’s how you can really save the planet. |
Recommended Listening and Viewing
Recommended ReadingCould the Internet Archive Go Out Like Napster? Pentagon Opens Review Of Its Clandestine Psychological Operations Recommended Listening284. Superabundance: The Age of Plenty | Marian Tupy, Gale Pooley Recommended ViewingHyper-Real 3D TeleVisits — for the NEXT Lockdown Marc Morano: Permanent Lockdown & Chinafication of the West Just For Fun |
| SUBSCRIBER DISCOUNTS
CLICK HERE to visit the New World Next Week shop and use the coupon code subscriber25 at checkout to receive a 25% discount on any Corbett Report DVD or USB (or the new Mass Media: A History online course) just for being a Corbett Report member! |
Get ready for the guilt campaign. “Saving Mother Earth” through compliance to the green diktats will become just like “saving Gramma” by getting the jabs. Failure to obey WILL be demonized by the virtue police as proof of your uncaring selfishness, and more than enough justification to encourage your “friends”, family and neighbors to harass and report you to the “authorities”. Another big linchpin to the Divide & Conquer strategy that is working so well for the overlords.
I am curious about something- and please excuse my ignorance – but, I heard / read recently about Stanley Meyer and his water fuelled car. He was apparently assassinated because he was deemed a threat to the oil companies.
Now, surely, if the globalists were really concerned about c02 and it’s ostensible effect on climate, they would be embracing the infinite possibilities of Meyer’s invention? Or, at the very least, exploring it further.
Similarly, although James touched on it, are not the petroleum companies worried about the massive loss of profit they will inevitably suffer once we are totally ‘greenfield ’? Perhaps that same question applies to the coal industry, although, we will need some coal to generate the electricity needed to power the electric cars .
Nothing adds up. Yet, the ‘aha’ moments are unrelenting for many of us .
There are so many parallels between the scamdemic ( covid, aids etc), where good health practices were ditched to save ‘ just one life’; and the vaccine lie, where we were told we could only be healthy by jabbing each other endlessly.. Meanwhile, in Africa, Gates vaccinated the populace, but there seemed to be no thought given to living conditions.
As we now seem to be facing another onslaught on our living conditions- why is it that so few seem capable of at least a modicum of curiosity?
A bit of a ramble – but would be interested in any thoughts anyone here might like to share .
Jendeg
They do not care about the environment…if they did they would do simple fixes that work rather than power grabs that do not reduce pollution much.
As Luke Smith once commented on his channel EVERY ‘solution’ to every ‘problem’ a bureaucrat offers is “give us more power”…. big business loves regulation even it it costs them money because it stops new players getting into the market since only the big corporations can afford the cost of compliance, soggoodbye competition ..every would be plutocrat loves control they get thru environmental regulations that THEY can afford to ignore.
Mr Corbett has written often on this
https://www.corbettreport.com/why-technocrats-love-the-green-new-deal/
The reason few pushback is that the pain is so far not enough. Most people will follow power because that’s their nature…if it gets bad too fast there will be pushback I think but it depends on how the ruling class acts. They are currently rather incompetent
Yes: of course, they can afford the cost. It totally smashes the ideal of human altruism. I’m not sure it even exists or ever did.
https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1676-whitney-webb-exposes-how-green-finance-is-monopolizing-the-planet/
Green finance monopolizing the planet
“are not the petroleum companies worried about the massive loss of profit they will inevitably suffer once we are totally ‘greenfield ’?”
If you already own everything what do you need with more money?
Duck,
Yes: of course, they can afford the cost. It totally smashes the ideal of human altruism. I’m not sure it even exists or ever did.
What to do? We’re all thinking and wondering… here’s my frustration in song:
https://soundburstdigital.com/conspiracy-only-on-my-mind-3/
Love it!
Never forget.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjVW6roRs-w&ab_channel=BenedictPringle
That 4 minute video of “exploding Carbon sinners” slides well with Corbett’s article.
Published in 2010.
Titled: 10:10 – No Pressure
The riders of the four horsemen are well into their ride as the world shows. I appreciate Corbett’s truth seeking initiative and his documentaries are the real history of civilization. God bless you and your work James !
Lecture from Simon Michaux (link in the article above) about what “green” transition means in terms of necessary materials is great…what a huge job, man. Of course there are shortcomings in it: big grid batteries won’t be lithium based, aluminum is used for cabling not copper….but in essence it is about magnitude and I’m sure he is got it right.
Since the lecture is about abundance/scarcity of metals there is another reality check that needs to be made (we are reality based community, aren’t we).
At 63:00 during Q&A there is a question referring to the club of rome.
Here on CR we also had this topic and Simon-Erlich thing. Prevailing attitude was that Simon got it right, supposedly proven by winning a bet. Well, Simon Michaux did a real job and showed there is not enough of stuff for green folly. He also showed that raw materials are finite, for all intents and purposes.
For those who have read Corbett’s article, he really tears into the Oxford ‘study’.
Sept 24, 2022 – OilPrice.com – By Haley Zaremba
(just so folks know…Haley often pushes the green agenda at OilPrice)
Climate Change Could Cost The Global Economy $23 Trillion By 2050
https://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Climate-Change-Could-Cost-The-Global-Economy-23-Trillion-By-2050.html
EXCERPTS
~~ Climate change could cost the global economy as much as $23 trillion by 2050.
~~ The U.S. federal government alone could spend between $25 billion and $128 billion each year in such areas as coastal disaster relief, flood insurance and crop insurance.
~~ A new report from Oxford University found that switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy could save the world a whopping $12 trillion US dollars by just 2050…
…Experts say that in a business-as-usual scenario, ecological and economic devastation are not just a threat, but an inevitability…
…It is misguided, however, to think that the clean energy transition will be a costly and overall expensive venture. In fact, it is the only plan that makes any economic sense in the medium or long term.
A brand new empirically grounded report from Oxford University finds that switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy could save the world a whopping $12 trillion US dollars by just 2050. For years, scientists have been reporting that the renewable revolution will overall save money – lots of money – over a long enough timeline, given the devastating negative externalities of climate change, but that amount has grown larger and larger as the cost of renewable energy technologies has continued to fall…
…“Even if you’re a climate denier, you should be on board with what we’re advocating,”
Prof Doyne Farmer from the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School told BBC News.
Going forward, clean energy is going to continue to be the cheapest option, whether you factor in environmental externalities or not. But when you do factor them in, oh boy is it a no-brainer…
…These kinds of climate-driven crises are only going to become more frequent, more powerful, and more costly.
For every additional tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted into the atmosphere, the higher the price tag of delaying the clean energy transition.
The Oxford report empirically underscores the fact that not only is decarbonization an economic imperative, the faster we do it, the more money we’ll save.
The models are clear: time’s a-wastin’.
I remember seeing a film many years ago with Charlton Heston in called Soylent Green. In which people who died were changed into protein bars (they were coloured green) to feed the population. Maybe the same could be done for energy. When someone has died from hypothermia or starvation (because of there energy bills) they could be shipped off as fuel to a power station.
🙂
A new meaning for Net Zero.
binns
The dead have been put to use before…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy_brown
I read (CT Currelly “I brought the ages home”) that one guy, on discovering what was in the paint gave the tune a chirstian burial in the back yard
For your interest cheaper safer sodium ion batteries are getting into the market.
A country that covers a number of time zones might develop more high voltage DC transmission lines to send solar-generated power from bright areas to less bright.
California could send power to Florida for storing in vehicle batteries after work.
And a point to keep in mind: the strong greenhouse gas water vapour amplifies the effect of CO2: https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=7&t=354&&a=19
Bsand
Having been told that all the penguins would be dead by now and we’d be seeing floods I am disappointed that global warming is not real….. if it WAS really happening then I could look forward to a warm artic and Greenland being green like when the Vikings lived there.
If there IS any warming it won’t be any warmer then the middle ages or maybe Roman times when Britain grew grapes.
Funny enough I read that the eskimo are the third (??) Culture to live in the frozen north, every now and then such folks all die off from cooling and are replaced with new immigrants from the south when the warming returns
Good news about better batteries coming down the line
In this article James links to
https://www.corbettreport.com/climate-change-is-unfaslifiable-woo-woo-pseudoscience/
which talks of Karl Popper and he claims “saltier seas and less salty seas,” represents pseudoscience.
While I don’t disagree with all the article we are commenting on I do feel it to be important to be careful about getting things straight in talking.
There was quite a bit of work going on in New Zealand in the 1970s studying layers of temperature and salinity in oceans. And transport between the layers by “fingers” of salinity. Salinity is not constant in one ocean let alone across the world.
The Arctic less salty melt water sits on top of the more dense salty water below.
Moving on from that challenge to James, note the much higher CO2 concentration therefore acidity tat less salty water is getting from the CO2 in the air. That can affect ability of marine organisms to make their shells. In this article “lower pH” means “more acid.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2340425-western-arctic-ocean-is-acidifying-four-times-faster-than-other-oceans/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=2022-09-30-Western-Arctic-
So it’s not only warming to be worried about. The penguins will be going short of food.
bsand
Fool me once shame on you… If I am dumb enough to fall for it twice shame on me.
There is no global warming.
If there was global warming then they would not need to play tricks with averaging out all measurements to find a fraction of a degree.
Even if there were global warming I would not worry, since we have been both much colder and much hotter then we have now- in Viking times Green land was much nicer then it is now.
If in the future we get global warming I will not worry about it until AFTER greenland is green and cow filled once more…grapes and wine from South England like in Roman times would also be nice….I actually WISH for some global warming, now I think about it.
Even if you don’t happen to be worried warming you should be worried about increase in CO2 level and the resulting ocean acidification which will be stopping sea organisms from producing their shells, since many of those are at the beginning of the food chain.
CO2 chart from Wikipedia:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/CO2_40k.png
bsand says:
“you should be worried about increase in CO2 level and the resulting ocean acidification which will be stopping sea organisms from producing their shells, since many of those are at the beginning of the food chain.”
Nope. CO2 poses no threat to nature, life nor mankind…
…even if mankind had the ability to dramatically elevate global atmospheric CO2 levels, intentionally or unintentionally. But mankind does not have that ability. Mankind can’t do it on a global scale. It is impossible.
The mechanics of natural processes demonstrate this.
Many people would be wondering how atmospheric CO2 increased 50% in the last hundred years, that would be much more than in the previous 40 thousand years.
CO2 stimulates plant growth but as frequently happens uptake of other nutrients can’t keep up and the protein quality decreases. That would be a reason for reduction in some insect populations. Pollinators going missing. Have you noticed fewer insects hitting your car on country trips?
“Ebi directly refuted an idea that’s been floating around for a while about the effect of CO2 on food production and global hunger. Technically, plants need CO2 to survive: They bring it in, break it down, and rely on carbon to grow. Some researchers have claimed that more CO2 means that more plants will be able to grow, and higher CO2 levels will then help solve food insecurity.
That, according to Ebi, is a hugely, dangerously wrong. Not only will climate change and global warming make agricultural productivity and much more unstable, but when plants take in an excess of CO2, their chemical makeup changes in a way that that’s harmful to the humans and animals that depend on them for nutrition: higher concentrations of CO2, increases the synthesis of carbohydrates like sugars and starches, and decrease the concentrations of proteins and nutrients like zinc, iron, and B-vitamins. “This is very important for how we think about food security going forward,” Ebi says.”
https://globalhealth.washington.edu/news/2019/04/23/high-co2-levels-will-wreck-plants-nutritional-value-so-don-t-plan-surviving
Bsand
Co2?
Seriously?
A big old volcano going boom can pump out more CO2 then humanity can.
It’s fake and gay BS…having boiled off the oceans in Sim Earth and scared myself I now know it’s nothing to worry about.
(you can still play simEarth on Dosbox btw…just make sure you download to he manual with the game)
to Duck: “CO2 out-gassed to the atmosphere and oceans today from volcanoes and other magmatically active regions is estimated at 280 to 360 million tonnes (0.28 to 0.36 Gt) per year, including that released into the oceans from mid-ocean ridges
Humanity’s annual carbon emissions through the burning of fossil fuels and forests, etc., are 40 to 100 times greater than all volcanic emissions.”
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/736161
I don’t know sim Earth, but oceans don’t “boil off.” They evaporate, and they and our soils and vegetations and rivers can evaporate 7% more for every Celsius degree increase in temperature. Does sim Earth have “dew point?” Then the extra water vapour in the atmosphere can drive worse weather, too.
bsand,
I think you should probably look at some other sources of information than the “conventional sources” you are quoting.
Are you deliberately not trying to watch some of Corbett’s earlier works on Climate Change?
Corbett recently has the Flashback: Climategate (2009)
https://www.corbettreport.com/flashback-climategate/#comment-140658
But also take a look at
— A Corbett CLIMATE CHANGE List of Videos —
https://www.corbettreport.com/october-open-thread-2/#comment-119619
If any Corbett Member (or non-member) has not watched the documentary(s) mentioned in the first link on the list, then they will be in the dark as to what is currently taking place on a global scale.
Some of the move to power efficiency may be driven by certain entities’ profit motives, I am wondering why US would have been behind with HVDC power transmission lines.
The last picture in this article shows two images of New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern.
“ABB has an historic involvement in the link. The first New Zealand link was commissioned by ABB, (erstwhile ASEA), in 1965 as one of the first HVDC transmission systems in the world. It was originally a bipolar 600 megawatt (MW) link with mercury arc valves, until the original equipment was paralleled onto a single pole in 1992, and a new thyristor-based pole was commissioned by ABB alongside it, increasing capacity to 1040 MW.”
I wish we could keep thinking clearly.
https://www.powermag.com/press-releases/abb-will-upgrade-historic-new-zealand-hvdc-link/
One of your links mentions: “Antarctica ice melting and Antarctic ice gaining and dozens of other contradictions? Popper gave a name to “theories” like this: pseudoscience.”
Karl Popper escaped Europe from 1937 – 1945 and worked in Christchurch where I live. My grandmother went to some of his university extension lectures.
There are several types of Antarctic ice formations.
The “ice sheets” are the thick layers of ice sitting on solid ground.
The “ice shelves” are the floating extension to the sheets.
“Sea ice” is thin seasonal fringes extending beyond the shelves.
I suggest warm subsurface currents coming to the Antarctic melt subsurface ice. This melt-water will be less salty and dense than sea water, rise, and being less salty will freeze readily on the surface, extending sea ice and reflecting away incoming solar heat from the region. Extra water vapour from warming oceans will
fall as snow over the Antarctic. The extra snow weight must cause glaciers to move faster with subsurface melting. Large icebergs calve off.
The British seem to be taking the most interest with their autosub (see Boaty McBoatface,) studying subsurface melting and currents.
How much extra snow has been falling in Antarctica?
My understanding was that its basically a desert as far as precipitation goes.
also not sure how the weight of snow pushing down onto of the glacier would make it flow faster if its falling all along the length?
Here is something about Antarctic snow fall.
https://earth.org/data_visualization/antarctic-snowfall/
“As the planet gets warmer, more water is evaporated into the atmosphere, which brings more precipitation in the form of snowfall. The Clausius-Clapeyron equation states that our atmosphere can hold about 7% more moisture per 1°C (1.8 °F).”
The atmospheric moisture doesn’t get right inland and there is low but steady snowfall there. But there is plenty nearer to the coast.
Agreed! Superb, rousing stuff.
I am more optimistic about the ecology, economics, physics, and politics behind the green energy movement, using NASA technology to make critical systems engineering improvements that optimize space age technology for real world problems. We have all seen hydrogen rockets carry tons of payload into orbit. Hydrogen is the true energy carrier in hydrocarbons, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, not carbon. The hidden cost of cheap oil is toxic pollution, fascist engineering, war, and economic slavery. We can do better. For example, third generation concentrated solar power (CSP) plants use extremely hot iron balls to generate clean turbine electricity for days without any emissions or hazardous byproducts. Fourth generation plants could be used for desalination, electric power generation, and hydrogen/oxygen/ammonia production, exploiting high temperatures, light, and electrolysis to crack water/steam into hydrogen and oxygen or to produce water from air. Hydrogen fuel cells coupled with electric engines already power buses and cars with more torque and acceleration without any combustion or emissions. Planes, diesel-electric trains, and boats can also run on hydrogen (or ammonia) fuel cells, too. Hydrogen gas can be made on-demand with electricity from water, which is the most abundant element in the universe. Germany may soon be forced to rely on hydrogen power and other alternative energy sources in order to reach 100% renewable sources by 2035. Tanks can be delivered to hydrogen fueling stations like gasoline or it could be generated on site at the pump. Hydrogen gas could also be piped into homes like natural gas for combustion free fuel cell heating and cooling. Unlike so-called “fossil” fuels, hydrogen gas is non-toxic, less likely to explode, and less likely to cause fires because it dissipates so quickly. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, unlike oil. Fourth generation nuclear power plants could contribute electricity and high-temperature hydrolysis to the carbon-free energy mix in case of another asteroid cataclysm. GAF & Tesla solar roofing tiles may revolutionize off-grid and home solar+grid+battery tie-in electrical systems that decentralize grid energy production – like solar panels on street lights. Wind power may have a cautionary, unforeseen, geodetic downside, mechanically slowing down the wobbly rotation of the earth, which is “currently” 1,040 MPH at the equator. Heck, we might discover how to harness geothermal HVAC power with plastic water pipes buried ten feet, antifreeze, clamps, a car radiator,a saltwater pump, a thermostat, and a fan, for Christ’s sake! With God, anything is possible. THE MORE YOU KNOW…
Escaped hydrogen may slow the recovery from escaped chlorofluorocarbons. see Tromp T and followers.
@gpru
You seem to be a proponent of what is referred to as “Bright Green Environmentalism”.
If you have not read it yet, I recommend this book: https://archive.org/details/derrick-jensen-bright-green-lies-monkfish-book-publishing-company-2021
While I am glad you are so enthusiastic and appreciate your positive attitude you did not account for the ecologically degenerative, geopolitically incendiary and economic hypercentralizing aspects of many of the technologies that you listed which relate to the mining operations required to scale them up and keep them in operation.
You talk about solar and nuclear energy tech and use the word “clean” but what about where the required materials come from (especially with rewards to the batteries), the processing required and the economic incentive for corporations and governments to use murder, blackmail, bribes, violence and ‘economic hitmen’ tactics that an increased demand for said finite resources creates?
Here in Canada, the massive increase in demand for lithium and cobalt is resulting in aggressive moves by our government to use eminent domain laws to forcibly remove indigenous people up north from their homes, clear cut pristine boreal forests, draining/poisoning rivers and lakes so that hard rock open pit mines can be carved into the bones of the Earth. That is all being done to get at the lithium, uranium, tantalum, tungsten and cobalt to scale up your so called “green”, “renewable” and “sustainable” “space aged” tech.
There are now a number of community organizers (which were rallying their community members to stop the lithium corporations from destroying the forests and rivers) from up north that have gone missing, and it looks to me like it is the Osage Murders all over again (albeit this time it is blood for lithium instead of blood for oil).
But what is the organized murder and/or forced relocation of a few hundred people in the name of “progress” right?
Musk’s solar roofs depend on massive lithium batteries, that lithium and cobalt is drenched in blood and requires the destruction of intact ecosystems to mine it.
Using hydrogen to power existing machines would be great, but when people invent viable prototypes for using water in that regard, they end up dead and their work disappears.
Given two years have passed since your comment above, and given all that I just shared, I am curious are you still “optimistic about the ecology, economics, physics, and politics behind the green energy movement” ?
For context here are 𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗽𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗟𝗶𝗲𝘀:
“This book is an introduction to some of the lies common among the bright greens. We reveal many of these lies, analyze why and how they are false, and make clear the tricks the bright greens are pulling —possibly on themselves as well as the rest of us—to perpetuate these lies. Our hope is that once we’ve revealed these lies, our readers can use what they’ve learned to debunk other bright green claims.
We’re not saying innovation is never helpful. Nor are we saying we shouldn’t recycle, or that some forms of production aren’t more or less unsustainable than others, or that cities can’t be made less unsustainable.
We’re simply saying that we shouldn’t lie to ourselves, or to each other. Especially with the world at stake, we should tell the truth.
We’re saying that these bright green solutions are lies that allow us to maintain an unsustainable way of living while pretending that we are not killing the planet..
The beings and biomes who were once at the center of our concern have been disappeared. In their place now stands the very system that is destroying them. The goal has been transformed:
We’re supposed to save our way of life, not fight for the living planet; instead, we are to rally behind the “machines making machines making machines” that are devouring what’s left of our home. They are solving for the wrong variable. Our way of life doesn’t need to be saved. The planet needs to be saved from our way of life.
There’s a name for members of this rising movement: bright green environmentalists. They believe that technology and design can render industrial civilization sustainable. The mechanism to drive the creation of these new technologies is consumerism. Thus, bright greens “treat consumerism as a salient green practice.” Indeed, they “embrace consumerism” as the path to prosperity for all. Of course, whatever prosperity we might achieve by consuming is strictly time limited, what with the planet being finite. But the only way to build the bright green narrative is to erase every awareness of the creatures and communities being consumed. They simply don’t matter. What matters is technology. Accept technology as our savior, the bright greens promise, and our current way of life is possible for everyone and forever. With the excised species gone from consciousness, the only problem left for the bright greens to solve is how to power the shiny, new machines…
Once we fought for the living. Now we are told to fight for their deaths, as the wind turbines come for the mountains, lithium mines are carved into the boreal forests and solar panels conquer the deserts…
(from Bright Green Lies : How The Environmental Movement Lost It’s Way (2021) by Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith and Max Wilbert)
For more context. This video clip has one of the authors of the book quoted above discussing “The trajectory of Industrial Civilization, Statism and the inherent totalitarian nature of some tech” :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImbnWSkqfig
All one needs do is have a good look at the city built around one of the world’s greatest “free energy” sources, Niagara Falls, USA. You will see unbelievable poverty, abandoned homes, buildings, run down neighborhoods where citizens are unable to pay their electric bills and water bills, a place and state where those resources should be nearly free, instead they’re used to rob and harm people who live there.
THAT’S the reality of the crook-controlled power grid in USA. Nothing was learned from Enron, those crimes are in full force today, with the faked system of supply and demand foisted on the unknowing public.
WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 was where those files were so cleverly destroyed.
Gore, when relinquishing his victory as president, so Bush could navigate through the demolition plans already laid out, went on to “oppose” big oil, which Bush was an owner in.
The illusion Gore helped create, to shift us from oil to green solutions, was his new real job.
His partner became a former Enron executive. Together they sold news reporting Aljazeera, “earning” Gore a tidy profit for his moving away from election as president.
Ahh, what a complicated, rich tapestry they have woven, as the story spins, the narrative leads us to next-stage slaughter.
“Jump, when we reach the cliff. Everybody else is.” (Said with sarcastic satire)
sorry, no answers here, only observations. Great article, James. Thanks again.
I really appreciated Michael Shellenberger’s testimony before Congress.
A little background, Michael was for a long time an environmental activist that was opposed to fossil fuels, nuclear, and the use of natural gas. However, due to reality setting in and the high cost of alternative energies such as wind, solar, and geothermal – he has come to the conclusion that it is not economically feasible to transition to a green economy and the war on cheap sources of energy such as natural gas is a detriment.
I especially love how he highlighted the Malthusian psychology of this war at 7:46 into the testimony hearing, which you can watch here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJL7pSq4bpY
Here we see again how the mind-virus of Malthusianism is behind this insane agenda – and until this “root cause” is extricated from the body politic – we will continue to suffer the consequences of it’s insane religious zealotry.
— A Corbett CLIMATE CHANGE List of Videos —
https://www.corbettreport.com/october-open-thread-2/#comment-119619
If any Corbett Member (or non-member) has not watched the documentary(s) mentioned in the first link on the list, then they will be in the dark as to what is currently taking place on a global scale.
Back when CFCs were being legislated against there was opposition some of which could be repeated today for CO2.
https://www.scu.edu/mcae/publications/iie/v3n1/ozone.html
“Appeals to justice also underlie opposition to an immediate ban on CFCs. Justice requires that benefits and burdens be distributed equally. Banning the use of CFCs today would impose a great burden on the present generation, while the primary beneficiaries would be future generations.
Finally, those opposed to an immediate ban on CFCs point out that today there is no consensus on how we should factor in the rights of future generations. So the claim that the present generation should ban CFCs out of respect for future generations remains a point of contention among philosophers. Many argue, in fact, that a person must exist before he or she can claim a right to something, and since future generations do not, by definition, exist, they can have no rights.
Furthermore, rights are designed to protect and promote the interests of human beings. But we have no idea what interests or needs future generations will have.
Presently existing persons, on the other hand, clearly have a right to the resources necessary to meet their basic needs. An immediate ban on CFCs would divert scarce resources from meeting these basic needs for the sake of benefitting future generations, which have no legitimate claims on us. Rather than worrying about the needs of people who do not yet exist, we ought to be directing our resources to meeting the present needs of presently existing people.”
Some of that would apply to the current complaints against CO2 control. How would you feel about it?
Jim McCurty
You’ll work for food and die for oil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTW0y6kazWM
The day of judgment has been called more times than the end of the world due to climate change.
And which God should I believe in?
And whose God is the anniversary for?
There are claims to over five thousand and counting.
No, I agree with an old priest in a woman’s skirt, Jean Meslier, who stated:
This was the opinion of Jean Meslier, the 17th century French philosopher, an atheist in a priest’s skirt (1)
In the preface to his famous “Memoir of Thoughts and Sentiments”, he wrote that he had recently encountered a man who “was not a student, but who evidently possessed sufficient enough common sense to recognise and condemn the abominable abuses,” for he had said that:
“all the great men of the earth should be killed, should be strangled with the intestines of priests and hanged by the neck…”
Meslier adds:
“This way of speaking certainly seems harsh, rude and offensive, but it must be admitted that it is frank and open. Frank, succinct and impressive.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier
Judgment days, the end of the world and climate change.
Gee,ever wonder why people believe in such nonsense?
Thank you for exposing this James. Great work.
I expand on the many ways in which “the lithium for these batteries comes from a mining process that is wreaking untold havoc on habitats around the world.” in this article:
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-anthropocentrism-bright
I also elaborate on how those mining operations involve weaponizing the corrupt court systems to steal people’s land and use police as corporate mercenaries.
???? ?????? ??????
????????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ??????
Large scale ‘Green Colonialism’ and ecological devastation is planned for northern Ontario and Quebec.
Our corrupt corporation captured government is helping to initiate large projects to pillage the lands of indigenous peoples (Cree of Eeyou Istchee, the Shakopaatikoong peoples of the Slate Falls first nation and the Waabitigweyaang peoples of Sandy Lake, among others ) and the body of Mother Earth in new Cobalt, Tantalum and Lithium mines in northern Ontario and Quebec.
Mines are proposed to be set up near James Bay and Red Lake with refineries in Thunder bay on Lake Superior. Given the nature of open pit mining, lithium leeching ponds and lithium refining, the inevitable result will be large scale poisoning of the water table and the ocean in James bay, contamination of the great lakes (through lake Superior, moving downstream into all the other great lakes), deforestation and genocide of local wildlife.
Rock Tech’s Georgia Lake Project at Nipigon is expected to produce an average of 100,000 Tons per a year of ore over its life.
Frontier Lithium is creating another lithium pillaging mining project with its PAK Project, 175 kilometers north of Red Lake. Much of Frontier’s 27,000 hectares is intended to be clear cut and devastated ecologically.
An Austrailian corporation called “Green Technology Metals” has already begun pillaging the boreal forest near and the body of Mother Earth with two projects (the “Seymour” and “Root” Projects) in Nipigon, Red Lake, Ontario. The company intends to destroy 40,800 hectares of ground with multiple lithium prospects spread out across the entire region.
Vancouver’s “Lithium One Metals” corporation has also acquired property 15 kilometres south of Green Technology’s Root Project where they intend to continue to pillage and destroy the boreal forest. Called the Pinto Property, the new addition brings the company’s total land base of 25,950 hectares in Northern Ontario and the James Bay side of Quebec.
In Quebec, Critical Elements Corporation plans to dry and empty lakes to build a lithium and tantalum open mine that will produce approximately 4,500 tons of the mineral a day for 17 years.
(continued..)
(continued from above..)
There is another mine called North American Lithium Project, Quebec, Canada which is located in the La Corne municipality, 60km away from Val d’Or city in. The proposed pit is expected to have a length of 1,350m, average width of 750m and final pit depth of 270m. The North American Lithium project will have a processing facility that intends to pillage 1.5 million tonnes of ore per annum.
Another mine is proposed by Australia-based Allkem-Galaxy Resources Ltd. The mine site is set to be located about ten kms south of the Eastmain River and 100 kms east of the Cree community of Eastmain in northern Quebec. Despite concerns being expressed by indigenous community leaders the project was approved by our corrupt government on Jan. 16. has an estimated mine life of 15 to 20 years and is expected to produce on average 5,480 tonnes of ore per day.
The James Bay lithium mine is part of the federal government’s $3.8 billion critical minerals strategy to domestically extract minerals, like lithium, that are used in batteries for electric vehicles, laptops, solar panels, wind turbines and other so called “green” or “renewable” technology.
Strip mining and deforestation is not something that can be undone. It means the decimation of ancient diverse ecosystems, and so there is nothing “renewable” or “green” about it.
Extracting the soil in this region which has “one of the purest spodumen (lithium ore) deposits in the world, with more than 530 km2 of land,” according to Critical Elements Corporation, will also require destruction of wetlands and a significant number of trees.
This mining project plans to carve out massive areas of land so facilitate 136 heavy truck passes per day, in the middle of the boreal forest.
The boreal forest will be clear cut, the moose, caribou, the lynx, the mountain lion, wolves, fox, bobcats, eagles, hawks and countless other winged and four legged beings will be forcibly displaced from their homes (inevitably resulting in many of them attempting to return to their homes only to starve while pacing near the fences or to be poisoned by the toxins these mines produce). The fish in the lakes, the whales and countless other beings in James bay, they will all be decimated by these projects.
These projects will mean we trade blood for lithium so we can have fun smart devices and electric cars to play with. We will be trading the ancient beauty and majesty of the Boreal forest and all it’s inhabitants for smart phones and tesla cars. Is it really worth it?
They appear to be moving in Fast and Quiet to avoid resistance.
Does anyone reading this know of any organizations that are working to resist this corporate/government pillaging of the Earth and prevent these mines from moving forward with their plans?
I recently had an interview about free energy, let me know what you think of it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyjNADHGtS0
@Johan
I`ll watch it when I can and let you know. Thanks for the link.
@Johan
What are your thoughts on that new Steven Greer documentary called “Battle For Disclosure” ?
A few minutes ago (11 am-ish, dec, 21, 2024) I was just watching a live youtube feed of his where he was updating about some intel on an active op where supposedly law enforcement will be sent to specific USAP sites to incarcerate rogue military people using the exotic tech for racketeering operations and the feed got cut midsentence, the live video also disappeared simultaneously from rumble. It was kinda spooky.
I didn´t see the video, but cutting of the feed is normal reaction from the shadow government, but i hope more people will realize that there is active censorship on this subject and that people look for decentral channels to find that knowledge (there is a lot of development on decentral protocols like Nostr, check the Primal client)
@Johan
That was a great interview.
I was already familiar with about 90% of the technologies and people you mentioned, but the discussion and insights shared helped to shine new light on some of those peoples and technologies, so thanks for that.
Nitinol is intriguing. Based on your knowledge of metallurgy, could recycled nickel and titanium be used to create Nitinol? Or does that alloy require raw ore to be created due to the molecular structure changes that are incurred in most recycling processes?
I saw a book on the table in front of you in the interview, did you author it? and if so, where can I buy a copy?
What are your thoughts on the hot fusion reactor tech that some people are promoting as a revolutionary form of energy generation that can free our society from dependance on oil?
If you could work the knowledge you have into something applicable in a practical and DIY format that could be applied in a decentralized manner, I think it would make for an interesting topic for the SolutionsWatch here on the Corbett Report.
Thanks again for the comment.
Dear @G,
Great that you found me, for now a short response, but will give a larger response later
hot fusion reactor is a scam like green energy, LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction aka cold fusion) is the real solution.
Here an overview on LENR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yig4zoLv9Qk
Bob Greenyer knows a lot about LENR, check the following websites about that:
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/
https://remoteview.substack.com/
There is also a working LENR prototype for commercial use called the E-Cat from Andrea Rossi
https://ecatthenewfire.com/
Evo Labs is meant to work as an opensource and decentral manner for easy to make free energy solutions, check https://evo-labs.io/
I know free energy is not the correct word, it should be abundance energy
Here the book about GEET, https://www.robertboerman.nl/vision/publishing/geetboek.php
Kind regards,
Johan van den Heuvel
@Johan
I agree about hot fusion reactors.
I have expressed my concerns about the current forms of nuclear fusion being promoted as “green” or “sustainable” to several people recently. The PR sounds great, but underneath the hype, when you take a look at what materials and equipment are required, that kind of hot fusion tech they are working on at ITER can only result in a new kind of energy corporation monopoly. This whole push for hot fusion reactors (and all the billions in tax payer money and other funding sources being spent on it) reminds me of the cancer industry and its endless push for more funding for “research” (scooped up through campaigns and going right into big pharma’s pocket perpetually so they can develop, patent and have a monopoly on brutally expensive chemo drugs etc (while real proven natural cures are blackboxed, ‘fact checked’ or otherwise demonized in some way or ignored because they cannot be patented).
The hot fusion reactors that are being promoted in the mainstream news/academic circles right now are extremely wasteful in how much energy is required to operate them (for the high-powered lasers). Also, even if they could create a chain reaction that was self-sustaining, it would still require extremely expensive specialized equipment and materials. For instance, one gram of deuterium is currently costing more than a gram of gold to produce and tritium is being estimated to cost $2 billion per kilogram produced (requiring lithium to be produced, which again means depending on a finite resource, that is strip mined etc). If these hot fusion reactors were adopted and developed to plug into our existing power grid it would result in existing centralized energy cartels creating monopolies (just like they did with oil) dominating people’s access to the energy the hot fusion devices would create. This is not a wise or responsible solution to our global energy conundrum.
As the video clip pointed out during the interview linked above, people like Eugene Mallove were doing extremely important work on L.E.N.R. (aka “cold fusion”) technologies and exposed the systemic corruption of institutions like MIT (and their actively covering up discoveries pertaining to said scientific developments). The technology he was working on (related to LENRs) would be able to be applied in a decentralized fashion and scaled to the needs of situations globally. That however would threaten the pocket books of some very powerful people, thus Eugene Mallove was killed and here we are with hot fusion being promoted in universities and on the news (as, unlike “cold fusion” tech, hot fusion tech is something that can be monopolized).
Thanks very much for the links, I will check out when I can.
@Johan
PS – Was that you that just became a paid subscriber to my Substack blog? (there was someone with the name Johan in their email that just showed up on my notifications).
If that was you thanks so much for the kind donation, it is appreciated and the funds be put to good use.
If you would like some heirloom seeds ( which were listed in this post: https://substack.com/@gavinmounsey/note/c-79407230 ) for the garden, and that was you that just subscribed, just email me a preferred mailing address and i`ll send some your way.
Thanks again for the info, glad we crossed paths.
@G I was not a subscriber yet, but now i am (not paid yet, is possible to pay with BTC of Lightning to subscribe to your substack? )
I do have a vegetable garden where i grow my own food
ps. I do also work with electroculture to grow food and give workshops in electroculture
Kind regards and the best wishes
@Johan
Oh okay, so I connected with two different Johans in a short amount of time, far out! 🙂 well thanks for getting back to me and thanks for subscribing to my newsletter.
I do not know if I am well versed enough in cryptocurrency dynamics to make that happen, I would be cool with that if I can figure it out.
I had a crypto wallet a while back but the company I was using started asking me for biometric identification so I stopped using it.
I`ll look into getting another account going once I am all set preparing for a Regenerative Agriculture conference I will be presenting in next week and get back to you.
I also send out seeds with each physical copy of my book that is purchased (though only payment options I could figure out and offer on my website for that are paypal and stripe as an alternative as I know that paypal owner is a super shady transhumanist/oligarch).
I have yet to experiment with electro-culture but based on my understanding of the work presented by both Viktor Schauberger and Matt Powers in his Regenerative Soil Science book, I think there is a lot of potential there for optimizing plant health and boosting yields.
Thanks again for getting back to me and I wish you many bountiful harvests this year.