At no cost to the tax payer?
I keep on reading bail out but I’m inclined to think it’s going to more like a bail in. Depositors transformed into shareholders. I read about these possible type of changes after the last banking crisis.
1,630 karma · joined August 28, 2011
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/02/wind_power_make...
A discussion at:
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/wuc4vg/assoc_prof...
Simon Michaux presents the deck of data showing details of where his calculations are coming from that show even the first generation of renewables to replace fossil fuels is going to outstrip our capacity to source the minerals (lithium, copper, vanadium, manganese, cobalt, etc required for only the first generation of renewable energy) and the amount of energy to be replaced based on efficiencies is exorbitant. Summary: EROI going down, mineral requirements going way up spell issues moving forward.
This is from today’s James Kunstler blog:
The solar electric I installed on the house nine years ago is down. It’s supposed to feed that monster called the grid. Since April, I noticed that the electric bill is creeping up way beyond the usual seventeen bucks that the electric company charges home solar producers for the privilege of feeding their system — which, let’s face it, has a downside for them because the intermittency of so-called alt-energy disorders their operations.
Limits to Green Energy Are Becoming Much Clearer: https://ourfiniteworld.com/2022/02/09/limits-to-green-energy...
[1] It is becoming clear that intermittent wind and solar cannot be counted on to provide adequate electricity supply when the electrical distribution system needs them.
2] Adequate storage for electricity is not feasible in any reasonable timeframe. This means that if cold countries are not to “freeze in the dark” during winter, fossil fuel backup is likely to be needed for many years in the future.
3) After many years of subsidies and mandates, today’s green electricity is only a tiny fraction of what is needed to keep our current economy operating.
[4] Even as a percentage of electricity, rather than total energy, renewables still comprised a relatively small share in 2020.
5] Most modelers have not understood that reserve to production ratios greatly overstate the amount of fossil fuels and other minerals that the economy will be able to extract.
6] The world economy seems already to be reaching limits on the extraction of coal and natural gas to be used for balancing electricity provided by intermittent renewables.
7] Conclusion. Modelers and leaders everywhere have had a basic misunderstanding of how the economy operates and what limits we are up against. This misunderstanding has allowed scientists to put together models that are far from the situation we are actually facing.
(Can’t get to this link)
I’ve posted this before. I’d like to understand this better: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7645850/ THE RISK OF ADE IN COVID‐19 VACCINES IS NON‐THEORETICAL AND COMPELLING
The authors here agree (I’d really like professionals to discuss this for it’s highly disturbing; but obvious why it wasn’t communicated to subjects)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7645850/
THE RISK OF ADE IN COVID‐19 VACCINES IS NON‐THEORETICAL AND COMPELLING
It seems that the new data invalidates that conclusion?
Both NOAA and NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with NOAA saying we’re entering a ‘full-blown’ Grand Solar Minimum in the late-2020s, and NASA seeing this upcoming solar cycle (25) as “the weakest of the past 200 years”, with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here.
So instead of solving this problem it was decided to go forward;abominable. At least the truth came out.
That compares to a solar panel efficiency of .15; and I guess a lot less when applied to water heating due to conversion. And implementing in dense urban areas, passive is not as viable as active. If we were serious we would first implement passive systems. But we don't. I guess there’s something I don’t understand.
Now this notion of psychological safety is interesting because it makes me think of our larger environment (too much a leap!) that it's similar to our personal safety ( perhaps requiring more surveillance?). It reminds me of Hayek’s notion in "Road to serfdom" opining that submitting to less freedom for more safety will make you worse off. I do have to say I would probably submit to more safety - it's so much easier.
Selling treasuries has large ramifications for the US. and a warning that we should think about getting our financial house in order (congress will not heed this, only the bond traders will force "austerity" as they did during the Carter administration) China's 2% devaluation of the renminbi a couple weeks ago was the trigger for the current market turmoil.
Chinese financial tactics are probably aligned with the goal of inclusion into the IMF SDR: <IMF Executive Board Approves Extension of Current SDR Currency Basket Until September 30, 2016> http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2015/pr15384.htm (Was it retribution for not being immediately included? Maybe not, but they still are the major holder of US treasuries.)
Then they wouldn't need as many dollars to buy their trade goods. Chinese rise is inevitable and we need to do serious things to prepare for living beyond our means.