Politics Climate Hysteria Debunked Yet Again ....

Agreed on nuclear energy, Telmar. But wind turbines are S**t, and cause lots of damage to the environment. And I''m not talking about the poor little birdies sliced off by the rotating turbines either. One needs but to look at such pictures. The 1st one is the metal cage which will be filled with concrete to anchor the turbine : I guess you need to use quite a bit of fossil energy to melt and shape all this metal. The second one is the concrete base itself : the - fossil-energy powered! - crane gives the scale. And of course, producing concrete is also a fossil energy consuming process.
I consider wind to be used only in ultra marginal cases. Austria and Hungary have quite a few of them in the plains of Pannonia...I think Austria is moderately happy about them. As you say the thing is is that so much energy is needed to build and maintain one that I doubt it makes any real sense.

I am on the fence for solar. If you can put some panels on a roof, I don' t see how it can hurt.
 
I consider wind to be used only in ultra marginal cases. Austria and Hungary have quite a few of them in the plains of Pannonia...I think Austria is moderately happy about them. As you say the thing is is that so much energy is needed to build and maintain one that I doubt it makes any real sense.

I am on the fence for solar. If you can put some panels on a roof, I don' t see how it can hurt.
We're on the same page then.
What winds me up - no pun intended ;) - is the fact that I don't see any rationale in the global green energy program. We're burning a lot of resources to make these things, resources that may come to be missing for future generations when true renewable energy might come of age : the ITER project is very promising, nuclear fusion will - IMO - solve the problem of energy scarcity for many generations to come.

Furthermore, I also think there are darker motivations behind all this. A few years ago, I stumbled upon the "book" by Greta Thunberg (well, less than 10 pages actually) but I did not feel the need to go beyond the resume on the back cover. Just let me quote her

"Je veux que vous paniquiez.
Je veux que chaque jour vous ayez peur"

I want you to panic
I want you to feel fear

And as president Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." It is a very convenient gateway for dictators to subvert our liberty...
 
IMG-20240229-170847.jpg


 
I want things to be my way, but i have no idea how they work and how to accomplish that.
 
I consider wind to be used only in ultra marginal cases. Austria and Hungary have quite a few of them in the plains of Pannonia...I think Austria is moderately happy about them. As you say the thing is is that so much energy is needed to build and maintain one that I doubt it makes any real sense.

I am on the fence for solar. If you can put some panels on a roof, I don' t see how it can hurt.
never understood why solar is not used more or at all, on government buildings.... government buildings, occupy a LOT of space, and given that the government has economies of scale, relatively cheap for them to cover all that rooftop real estate with solar, at the same time maybe helping to drop the price for consumers as well.... but it doesnt happen. instead they want to build wind farms out to sea.... something doesnt make sense, and seems very fishy. and lets not talk about just building another nuke plant.
my parents little solar system for their 2500 sq ft house supplies them with enough energy that they sell some of it back to the grid. during the winter, the dont generate as much but it is enough fro them, with their partially shaded panels.... a roof over a government parking garage, with no shade ever, would generate a very large amount of power.
 
Carbon zero says it all. It's a trail of bread crumbs for lost minds leading to the carbon zero theme park with a rainbow.

Australia will need nearly three terrawatts, or 3,000 gigawatts, of wind and solar if it is to meet its goal of a net zero economy by 2030, a plan that could cost up to $9 trillion, according to a new study.

Three hundred and sixty five thoudand dollars and per man woman and child and not including maintenance.

Its an industry, forget the military industrial complex that Eisenhower knew about and warned about. This is far bigger..
 
Last edited:
Sorry but as a geologist, I see things in a different time scale. Solar cycles, and cycles we never know about in a megascale or mini one have played a part for tens of millions of years, Global atmosphere has varied and CO2 is not death. It creates a warmth that boosts life as geology shows.
 
Well, Primer, the demand for electricity could be reduced greatly if there were just less people!
It's probably not a desirable method for reducing people to have too many Chernobyl style accidents in nuclear power stations.. Our short lifetimes show how much knowledge on time scales we have. S**t ! We are talking about 500,000 years for some of this stuff we make. The first human ancestors appeared between five million and seven million years ago. It is possible to find a safe way to dump it but then dumping our rubbish seems as bad as a global pollution. Humans will never stop trashing the nest
 
Cost for resources must be incredibly high for ongoing generations.

I like watching the gold mining shows on discovery. The plaster miners who look for alluvial gold going through abandoned claims with the latest machinery and barely not going broke each season and most do go broke without a d10 dozer.
Jack can't just simply turn up like hundred years ago with the pan and shovel and find a pocket. And they were going hard too up in the Alaskan claims by mining through the permafrost down to the bedrock, iron pan or clay that held the most gold. A man pushes it to make a living in each generation and it's not getting easier.

Ther is no way they can do it on zero carbon, no friggin way.
 
Back
Top