He’s managed to divide the country in a manner never seen before in Australia’s history but you can guarantee that our illustrious leader, PM Tony Albanese, has many more bright ideas in store for us.
The mess he is making of industrial relations and the economy in general will be ongoing, as you’d expect from a socialist government. But then there’s climate change that he and his little mate Chris ‘Blackouts’ Bowen still have much to work on.
Which is more environmentally friendly — an energy source that uses one unit of land to produce one unit of electricity, or a source that uses 100 units of land to produce one unit of electricity?
The answer should be obvious.
Nevertheless, “green” energy advocates call for a huge expansion of wind, solar and other renewables that use vast amounts of land to replace traditional power plants that use comparatively small amounts of land.
Vaclav Smil, professor emeritus at the University of Manitoba in Canada, extensively analyzed the power density of alternative sources used to generate electricity. He defined power density as the average flow of electricity generated per square meter of horizontal surface (land or sea area).
The 2021 census for the first time reported on health, it revealed that 1 in 10 had a mental health problem. Surveys during the COVID period have shown that the young are particularly at risk, a risk compounded by the apocalyptic predictions of climate change. The combination of the two has undermined resilience and led to an increase in depression and suicidal attempts.
The news and social media, aided and abetted by “our ABC”, have contributed, there is also no doubt that climate negativity at school has been a factor, strongly influenced by both teachers and the curriculum. The newly announced intention of NSW and Victoria State Governments, to provide early learning from the ages of 3 or 4, increases that risk. My solution, parents should not be farming their children out at this age, instead tell them stories of hope and future promise.
For millennia, the use of energy sources beyond muscle strength was limited to mechanical energy from flowing air and water and chemical energy from renewable sources. The limitations of these then also limited the human population, which for millennia barely exceeded a billion. In the middle of the 19th century, around 1.5 billion people settled on earth. Only with the utilization of fossil energy sources, with technical progress in the industrialized countries and the associated increase in food production, the world population rose by leaps and bounds, to 2.5 billion by the middle of the 20th century. However, this is still moderate compared to the subsequent tripling to 7.5 billion today,which took place almost exclusively in developing countries. And all forecasts assume that this development will continue. In view of this, going back to mechanical and renewable energy sources and calling it “sustainable” is more than strange.Continue reading “The Green Hobby”
“Have you ever heard of unobtainium? It’s the magic energy mineral found on the planet Pandora in the movie Avatar. It’s a fantasy in a science fiction script. But environmentalists think they have found it here on earth in the form of wind and solar power.”
As a member of the CO2 Coalition and incoming Exec Director, I reject blanket subsidies for nuclear generation using false climate change and CO2-driven warming as the pretext for artificially propping up one energy form over another.
The modest warming of the last 100 or so years combined with increasing CO2 is leading to an Earth and humanity that are thriving and prospering. It is just is. By nearly every metric. And we should all be thankful of that today.
If you want to advance nuclear energy, please don’t use the same climate misinformation of the supposed dangers of increasing CO2 that are used to advance the renewable energy scam.
They wanted water without building dams, cheap reliable electricity without using coal or gas or nuclear power, transport without using petrol or diesel, food without farmers or fishermen, employment without factories, metals and motor fuels without refineries and bridges and buildings without cement and steel.
Their countryside was uglified by paddocks of magic mirrors, forests of whirling bird-slicers and spider-webs of access tracks and power lines that delivered abundant electricity when it was least needed (and little at peak demand).
But the taps went dry, cattle and crops died, batteries went flat, lights went out, seafood and rice came from Vietnam, metals were smelted and refined in China, trains were built in India, cars and trucks came from Japan, motors fuels were imported from South East Asia, construction slumped and savings fled to Zurich.
If carbon dioxide gas is your poison, nuclear power is your antidote. STT promotes nuclear power, because it works. For those characters getting jumpy about our so-called climate ‘emergency’, nuclear power has the added benefit of being the only stand-alone power generation source that doesn’t emit CO2 during the process.
Quite apart from its safety and reliability, there’s another very solid reason to promote nuclear power: and that’s cost.
Of course, comparing never-reliable wind and solar with ever-reliable nuclear power, is no comparison, at all. But those that pump the purported benefits of wind and solar will continue to compare ripe, rosy apples with rotting oranges.
Just to keep you abreast of what is going on in France…
You may have heard of the Yellow Vests, who triggered our president Macron into embarking on a “Grand Debate”, mainly on the internet. It is mostly a closed questionnaire with circular arguments on the most surreptitious ways to shoehorn the energy transition, without offering to question its legitimacy in the first place. However, looking closely at the fine print, contributors like associations can still express an open opinion.
On our side Rémy Prud’homme is an emeritus professor of economics, former consultant to the OECD, occasionally to the World Bank, and visiting professor at the MIT. As such he is our chief economist within the steering committee of the French Climato-Réalistes. He came up with the attached “ENERGY TRANSITION IN FRANCE: USELESS, COSTLY, UNFAIR”, initially in French of course. See: https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/energy-transition-in-france.pdf [PDF, 346 KB]
We thought you may like to know that we Froggies are enduring the same attacks as everywhere in the western world and that we like to voice our concern.
Pierre Bouteille, on behalf of the French Climato-Réalistes