"Green" Energy Will Kill Millions of People

Well, since it’s obvious I was once again proven correct, I guess I’m not going anywhere.

It’s funny how this works when people make these accusations they can’t back up.., they simply pretend like the accusations were never made so they can’t be proven wrong ( in their own minds anyway).

See you next outrage Koobookie!

Thanks for asking., SC. In my opinion thereis no such thing as green energy, yet. That’s because every form of energy production is reliant on fossil fuels, which the left has determined to be deadly to our very existence. We are told that windmills and solar panels are green energy because they don’t emit C02, but that’s only after they were produced by fossil fuels and they all wear out.

For the record, I have no problem with us using alternate forms of energy as long as the net clean gain is enough to make them worth while and their use doesn’t have more negative consequences than they are worth.

As to the topic of green energy killing millions of people, it’s not the energy itself that will kill off millions, it’s the forcing of that conversion that will eliminate poor people across the globe. It will also limit the free movement of people who will no longer be able to drive a vehicle because they won’t be able to afford fuel and certainty won’t be able to afford an EV. (Or have the means to charge one)

Putin just cut off Europe from the Russian gas pipeline and Europe has no viable green replacement for that lost energy source, so people will begin to suffer and more people will die. It’s the really poor countries that will suffer the most and that’s where we will see the most death as we continue to choke out the fossil fuel industry.

As I’ve said earlier, there are no articles you can find that will prove or disprove my PREDICTION, because that’s all it is, a prediction based on the reality I’m seeing.
All I wanted from this thread is a discussion about our energy future and whether or not others believe as I do or if they could logically explain to me how our leaders are going about this the right way. I don’t think world leadership on “green” energy has any clue what the consequences are to forcing out fossil fuels without having a viable substitute ready to replace those fuels. I believe they are more interested in controlling world populations and forcing us to rely on governments to survive.

If you don’t believe the forced conversion will kill millions and that the people forcing these changes are smart enough to make lives better, all I’m looking for is the evidence that could change my opinion. Posting scientific studies on the efficiencies of alternative energy sources isn’t helpful if the current application of those energy sources in the real world is not working (see Germany).

As for your views on nuclear, I don’t have total memory recall but I did look at your past post about that and see that you did endorse nuclear energy as a viable alternative. Unfortunately, the leaders of this and many other allied countries don’t seem to share that view, publicly anyway.

The bottom line for me is that we can not afford to increase the cost of energy substantially while we are drowning in debt and inflation. The world is suffering from bad Covid policies and the country that gave us Covid is banging out more coal fired plants every month. But here we are, virtue signaling our way to poverty as our enemies laugh.

Give me something to ease my mind SC, and thank you for participating in this thread.

Seems to me that there is a lot of free energy in ocean currents and wave action. I think it would be easy to set turbines on the bottom of the oceans.

Ocean currents are the continuous, predictable, directional movement of seawater driven by gravity, wind (Coriolis Effect), and water density. Ocean water moves in two directions: horizontally and vertically. Horizontal movements are referred to as currents, while vertical changes are called upwellings or downwellings.

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/ocean-currents-and-climate

," all I’m looking for is the evidence that could change my opinion. Posting scientific studies on the efficiencies of alternative energy sources isn’t helpful if the current application of those energy sources in the real world is not working (see Germany).

As for your views on nuclear, I don’t have total memory recall but I did look at your past post about that and see that you did endorse nuclear energy as a viable alternative. Unfortunately, the leaders of this and many other allied countries don’t seem to share that view, publicly anyway." per rick

I have posed a VERY detailed article on fusion,there was no comment.....here is a Q&A about nuclear fusion.
There r DEFINITE cons about tidal energy EXPENSIVE,detrimental to aquatic life. WE NEED A COMBINATION OF ENERGY PRODUCING SOURCES....U CAN NOT RELY ON JUST ONE and fossil fuel
is "just one".

I agree HA, but show me the most prominent political leaders in our country or even the most influential media people who are talking about nuclear and demanding we step that kind of energy up.

Again, the point of this thread is to discuss the elimination or great reduction in fossil fuel energy BEFORE alternate sources are affordable and viable as replacements. If my family was in serious debt but my wife insisted on converting our home to solar, would that be a wise move if we we having trouble just feeding our kids?

Democrats always have these great lofty intentions of fixing problems, but just like war on poverty, they usually make the problem worse. The poor population is a consistent Democrat voting base so there would be negative consequences for the party if more people were lifted out of poverty. More power over people always requires a more needy population, that is a fact.

Fusion power would be part of the solution but :"The giant leap will come with scaling up of the current fusion achievements in subsequent fusion systems, such as ITER and then in demonstration power plants beyond this. And this should be within reach in the not too distant future, aiming for operation by the 2050s or possibly slightly earlier.Mar 18, 2022"

www.google.com/search?q=is+fusion+power+...client=gws-wiz#tts=0

So where is CA going to get an additional 16,000 gigawatt hours by 2030?

Blazer Bob wrote: So where is CA going to get an additional 16,000 gigawatt hours by 2030?

An honest media and honest politicians would be asking that very question. Where are these people?

I omitted the link....

www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-is-nuclear-fusion

Here's the reality IF the 1 percent did NOT want to dominate the world stage (and keep the poor in a class based society) U WOULD SEE ENORMOUS EFFORTS to correct the problem and $$$$$ being thrown at climate change,so reversal of what is to come would not manifest.

homeagain wrote: I omitted the link....

www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-is-nuclear-fusion

Here's the reality IF the 1 percent did NOT want to dominate the world stage (and keep the poor in a class based society) U WOULD SEE ENORMOUS EFFORTS to correct the problem and $$$$$ being thrown at climate change,so reversal of what is to come would not manifest.

Per your article there is already ENORMOUS EFFORTS to develop fusion power. Are you saying there is a conspiracy among more than 50 nations to suppress or slow down its development?