The hottest doc of the year kills green energy

You can view it here if you like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

some of the data is older and cheerypicked however; you cannot ignore the fact that most of the 'renewable' options are worse than say, burning methane.

That's funny because some of us call the green movement "Watermelon"

Green on the outside. Red inside.

I'm noticing Progressive Socialists like say AOC or Bernie don't have any aversion to money. It's more they just want control over who has it.

Not to mention unsustainable. The amount of mineral resources that will be required for the "green devolution" is staggering.

No energy is innocent. The only truly clean energy is less energy.

In 2017, the World Bank released a little-noticed report that offered the first comprehensive look at this question. It models the increase in material extraction that would be required to build enough solar and wind utilities to produce an annual output of about 7 terawatts of electricity by 2050. That’s enough to power roughly half of the global economy. By doubling the World Bank figures, we can estimate what it will take to get all the way to zero emissions—and the results are staggering: 34 million tonnes of copper, 40 million tonnes of lead, 50 million tonnes of zinc, 162 million tonnes of aluminum, and no less than 4.8 billion tonnes of iron.

And then there are all the batteries we’re going to need for power storage. To keep energy flowing when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing will require enormous batteries at the grid level. This means 40 million tons of lithium—an eye-watering 2,700 percent increase over current levels of extraction.

That’s just for electricity. We also need to think about vehicles. This year, a group of leading British scientists submitted a letter to the U.K. Committee on Climate Change outlining their concerns about the ecological impact of electric cars. They agree, of course, that we need to end the sale and use of combustion engines. But they pointed out that unless consumption habits change, replacing the world’s projected fleet of 2 billion vehicles is going to require an explosive increase in mining: Global annual extraction of neodymium and dysprosium will go up by another 70 percent, annual extraction of copper will need to more than double, and cobalt will need to increase by a factor of almost four, all for the entire period from now to 2050.

The problem here is not that we’re going to run out of key minerals—although that may indeed become a concern. The real issue is that this will exacerbate an already existing crisis of overextraction. Mining has become one of the biggest single drivers of deforestation, ecosystem collapse, and biodiversity loss around the world. Ecologists estimate that even at present rates of global material use, we are overshooting sustainable levels by 82 percent.

Take silver, for instance. Mexico is home to the Peñasquito mine, one of the biggest silver mines in the world. Covering nearly 40 square miles, the operation is staggering in its scale: a sprawling open-pit complex ripped into the mountains, flanked by two waste dumps each a mile long, and a tailings dam full of toxic sludge held back by a wall that’s 7 miles around and as high as a 50-story skyscraper. This mine will produce 11,000 tons of silver in 10 years before its reserves, the biggest in the world, are gone.

To transition the global economy to renewables, we need to commission up to 130 more mines on the scale of Peñasquito. Just for silver.

Lithium is another ecological disaster. It takes 500,000 gallons of water to produce a single tonne of lithium. Even at present levels of extraction this is causing problems. In the Andes, where most of the world’s lithium is located, mining companies are burning through the water tables and leaving farmers with nothing to irrigate their crops. Many have had no choice but to abandon their land altogether. Meanwhile, chemical leaks from lithium mines have poisoned rivers from Chile to Argentina, Nevada to Tibet, killing off whole freshwater ecosystems. The lithium boom has barely even started, and it’s already a crisis.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the- ... ket-newtab

(This is the kind of shit Beave insisted in another thread won't happen in China, even though it is, because the rest of the world can bring them to heel. And yet it's happening around the world anyways.)

The thing that's missing in all of this is a solid plan to actually reduce energy consumption and mass consumerism. This would also include things like making products that last longer, scrapping built-in obsolescence, and reducing or eliminating the production and use of single-use items where feasible, and that doesn't just mean plastics. Carbon taxes are NOT a solid plan for reduction unless you make the tax so high nobody can afford shit.

And so, in the name of reduction, let me put forth a small twist on a favourite argument of the anti-gun crowd in Canada. Nobody living in a city needs a personal motor vehicle. There are public transit options. There's also walking and bicycling.

This documentary clearly outlines the fallacies of so-called 'green energy' as it's continued reliance on fossil fuels in order to sustain the unsustainable projects makes it anything but 'clean'. In addition to the use of fossil fuels to back-up these projects for those times when, say the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine there is the horrendous harm being done to nations where 'green energy' minerals are being mined. Someone should send that Swedish kid the video considering her complete lack of knowledge on the subject.

I was admiring a picture on my FB wall of two galaxies colliding, and ruminating about people who say that there's just not enough energy.

Aside from wind power, the green energy we should be focusing on is space-based solar energy:

https://singularityhub.com/2018/12/31/w ... rom-space/

if all they want is more subsidies for fans and panels, they aren't communist.

No. As I said in the part of the quote you clipped out, they're "Progressive Socialists." I guess you could call them wannabes though...as regards communism. They wouldn't say no to the power.

And if you check out the "Green New Deal" they were both backing, you'll discover they wanted a lot more than "subsidies for fans and panels."