We're all being told we MUST switch to "sustainable"/"alternative" forms of energy to save the planet from global warming.
But there are other things we're NOT being told, such as ...
Most "sustainable"/"alternative" energy (wind, solar, hydro, ocean waves, etc.) ultimately comes from the Sun. Any currently untapped potential energy from these intermediate sources is dissipated and/or radiated back into space.
But what happens when we "tap" those sources to make electricity or cook our food? Doing so generates heat which is trapped in the air, water, and soil before being radiated back into space via new paths. In other words, it will heat up the planet more or less the same amount as an equivalent expenditure of fossil fuel-derived BTUs.
The only potential difference is that the "net zero" carbon approach may ensure that CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses" will not be generated in the process, allowing the new heat balance to be achieved at a lower temperature.
But is that even feasible? Here are two recent reports which say otherwise:
We'll probably not reach net zero no matter how hard we try.
The bottom line? No one is doing a COMPLETE energy balance on the schemes being proposed to "save us". The only real way to cut back on the human contribution to global warming is to cut back on the number of humans.
And if that's even necessary (many credible scientists say it's not), who gets to authorize what would be the greatest mass killing of human beings in history? The brain-dead pedophile in the White House? The psychopaths in Congress? The Davos/WEF beast?
I thought this was a democracy. Silly me!
Here is additional discussion:
https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1663821719843270658?s=20
Update - 6/3/2023
Here is yet more discussion, from the German Business News (translation required):
https://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/703517/Die-EU-will-ultimativ-alle-Haeuser-ruinieren
No comments:
Post a Comment