Environment & Energy

It doesn't go over all that well with people who can't think clearly, no matter how much effort one puts into the effort; all such effort being as much of a waste of time as, say, spending trillions of dollars on a reactionary effort to return the world's energy supplies to dependence on the weather, at precisely the time these reactionaries have worked to destabilize the weather by their studied indifference to fossil fuels.

Still we persist.

Still, it's amusing on some level, if one can be amused by the destruction of the planet, as clearly indicated by the numbers in my previous post.

A credulous rube looks at soothsaying and considers them to be "facts."

For example, I frequently post this graphic, which is a nice summary of the 2024 EIA WEO, similar to the tables in all of the IEA WEO's of the 21st century, all of which I have in my files:



IEA World Energy Outlook 2024
Table A.1a: World energy supply Page 296.

Now, as an educated and well read person, as someone who has lived a long time, through lots of “by 1990,” “by 2000,” “by 2010,” “by 2020,” and now “by 2030,” “by 2040,” “by 2050,” or as the ethically withered morons at Greenpeace would have it, “by 2100,” soothsaying about the outbreak of a so called "renewable energy" nirvana.

It's not like I didn't suffer through the senile rhetoric of the extremely ignorant antinuke Harvey Wasserman, who predicted a Solartopia "by 2030," just six years from now in the early part of this century. (2006).

All of these airheads, this celebrants of wishful thinking, confuse soothsaying with reality.

Now, if one is literate, one is capable of making a distinction between reality and soothsaying (with healthy dollops of wishful thinking), something which is clearly troublesome for some people. All of the entries to the right of the column headed "2023" in the tables above are soothsaying, a la Harvey Wasserman, dumb shit antinuke. They should not be confused with facts. Incredibly, however, we see people, disingenuous poorly read credulous rubes who do actively embrace such confusion.

We can prevent the outcome posited by soothsaying by acting. If in 2050, as predicted in the soothsaying column of the table above, nuclear energy is only producing 49 Exajoules, and dangerous coal is still producing 94 Exajoules, dangerous natural gas 152 Exajoules, and Oil, 176 Exajoules, the planet is fucked. To me, but apparently not to the withered brains who think tearing the shit out of the Earth's remaining wilderness to get to 84 Exajoules of Solar Energy "by 2050" might be a good idea, it's pretty clear it won't happen, not because we will overcome antinuke ignorance, superstition and irrational "Robert F. Kennedy Jr." type fear, but because civilization will collapse from extreme global heating.

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving day, perhaps, with a solar powered oven. It wouldn't do to well here in NJ, where after an intense drought induced by global heating, I'm sure, we finally have some rain, and the clouds will make solar dependent ovens - should there actually be some - pretty ineffective.