With further technological advances, they may become more economic someday. But neither make any sense for mass base-load power in industrial economies. The efficiency of solar has been tremendously improved over the last few decades, as has wind efficiency. There’s no question that solar and wind are worthwhile and effective for select applications-generally small, isolated, special locations where conventional fuel is inconvenient or too costly. The powers that be want to transition the whole world to phony green energy, like it or not. Instead, time, capital, and brainpower have been massively diverted to so-called “ecological” power sources-mainly wind and solar-strictly for ideological reasons. The world would already be running on truly clean green electricity. But if nuclear had been left unregulated, we’d already be using small, self-contained, fifth-generation thorium reactors, generating power almost too cheap to meter. This isn’t the time to go into the numerous reasons that’s true. Nuclear is unquestionably the safest, cheapest, and cleanest type of mass power generation. If the market had been left alone, the world would undoubtedly be running on nuclear. These things happened not because of any government mandates but simply because they made both economic and technological sense.
Then, we went to oil, another huge improvement in energy density and economics. After that, we went to coal, which was a big improvement in density of energy and economics. In two words, it’s criminally insane.īefore the Industrial Revolution, the overwhelmingly major fuel source was wood. They’re committed to a comprehensive agenda to “decarbonize” their economies by 2050.ĭoug Casey: To sum it up in one word, it’s insane. International Man: Western countries are leading the charge in restructuring their economies around the issue of climate change.
0 kommentar(er)
