Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
3,235
This article is worth your time, the writer is a sincere Green and lefty, we don’t have to agree on everything but this article contains some gems, she believes CO2 is bad for example, outside of a context of asphyxiation people are ill informed about CO2.

Basically big tech is hailed as the savior of the world and climate catastrophe by the world economic forum, big tech data centers are the one of largest energy users on the planet, we already know the military machine is another one of the largest polluters on the planet, the MSM along with Greta the Swedish omen never seem to mention these glaring examples, they get hyperbolic about us the peasants along with vague rants about big business just caring about profit, the Swedish omen does this while attending events and receiving payment for attendance, all sponsored by said big businesses. Big tech is also causing more emissions than the aviation industry, wokists on big tech social media were ironically highlighting how good the planet was doing while flights were down during covid, what’s even more ironic is that self driving electric cars will cause people to use tech even more while just sitting there,LOL!
Guess what, instead of the truth on big techs energy usage the ruling class just lie about it, the article covers this well.

We are mad species, the more all of this unfolds I recall what Peat was saying years ago, it all seemed a touch hyperbolic when he would say society is becoming more psychopathic, when he spoke about authoritarianism etc, yet here we are, what’s alarming is there seems to be room for more madness, in a room of 1000 American over 250-300 are on SSRI’s or some form of antipsychotic, this is on the rise along with high stress changes in the environment likely to lower allopregnenolone further, the same pattern is present all over the western world, a UBI won’t alleviate this for the majority.
:rightagain2


ICT (Information and Communications Technology)​

Today the ICT industry represents the largest growing consumer of energy on the planet, with greenhouse gas emissions on par, or, more likely, far in excess of aviation. Depending on scope, in 2020 ICT accounts for up to 8% of the total global electricity. [Source] At the current rate of growth, approximately 9% each year (2018), the total electricity consumption of ICTs is projected to require 20% of the world’s electricity by 2025, and 30% all energy produced by 2030. [Source]

As concerns over data center energy consumption mount, obtaining the required data in order to ascertain the level of ecological damage resulting from the data centers becomes even more difficult. As criticisms of the industry grow, the global energy demands by data centers are being deliberately skewed downwards. Downward estimates are able to withstand scrutiny, due to the simple fact that there are no nationally reported statistics for data centers – and no global records. In a global corporatocracy, where hyper centers are privately owned by Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft, et al., it is of little surprise that the tremendous energy consumed within these vast infrastructures is kept deliberately obscure. [3]

In 2010 there was a broad consensus that worldwide, data centers consumed approximately 194 TWh (terawatt-hours of electricity) of energy, representing about 1% of total demand. This is on par with the entire energy consumption of Iran that same year. [Source] In 2017, the EIA repeated this number for the year 2014: “Data centres worldwide consumed around 194 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity in 2014, or about 1% of total demand. Although data centre workload is forecast to triple by 2020, related energy demand is expected to grow by only 3% thanks to continued efficiency gains.” In 2018, the figure for global energy consumption by data centers was said to have increased to 205 TWh. [“A 6% rise in power use with data-center computing growing by 550%”] [Source]

Today we can reflect on the past decade. Data centers have undergone “a ten-fold increase in traffic with a 25-fold jump in worldwide storage.” [Source] Yet, in 2020, data center consumption continues to be largely cited as approximately 200 TWh per year – (1% of global electricity consumption).

In 2011 Emerson Network Power stated that there were 509,147 data centers worldwide, taking up 285.8 million square feet of space – the equivalent of 5,955 football fields.



Again, reflect upon the annual cited consumption of data centers over the ten year time frame: 194 TWh in 2010, and ten years later, in 2020, 200 TWh. The estimate of 1% global energy consumption is referred to for both 2010 and 2020 – despite adding, roughly, 7.5 million data centres.

The 200 TWh of energy consumption per year claim (that remains flat) claim is further challenged by the European Union’s own research that concluded European data centers consumed 130 TWh in 2017, a 25% increase from 2014 (104 TWh), while Greenpeace reported China’s data industry to amount to 160 TWh in 2018. Together, these two figures alone suggest an annual total of 290 TWh. [Source] Further, consider that the consumption does not remain flat in the EU, despite having the newest, therefore most efficient, data centers.


In 2015, Siemens reported the global power demand for data centers as 416.2 TWh (far exceeding the UK’s total consumption, approximately 300 TWh).

Adding an additional 100 TWh to the 290 TWh cited above (the EU and China), in 2016, a Berkeley laboratory report for the US government estimated that the country’s data centres could require over 100 TWh of electricity a year by 2020, the rough equivalent of 10 large nuclear power stations. [Source] In 2017, data centers in the US alone used more than 90 TWh, the rough equivalent of 34 coal-powered plants generating 500 megawatts of power each. [Source]



2015 graphic, Siemens

In 2017, Hewlett Packard cites the energy consumption by data centers worldwide at 400 TWh:





2017 Hewlett Packard Presentation [Source]

While in 2018, “Nature”, Bloomberg, IEA, etc., continued to promote 200 TWh.

2018 Nature graphic
2018 Nature graphic






On January 6, 2020, the Uptime Institute assessed the global consumption of data centers as high as 500 TWh per annum. [Bashroush & Lawrence, 2020]. For some added perspective, 500 TWh is the equivalent of 50 large nuclear power stations:

“It seems likely that the annual consumption of energy by data centers is somewhere between 400 terawatt-hours (TWh) and 500 TWh, depending on what is counted as a data center. To put things in perspective in terms of demand, research by Uptime Institute Intelligence shows that every time an image is posted on Instagram by the Portuguese soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo (who at the time of writing has the highest number of followers on the platform), his more than 195 million followers consume nearly 30 megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy to view it.”
— Beyond PUE: Tackling IT’s wasted terawatts, Uptime Institute Intelligence report, Jan 6, 2020
The most dire assessments on the growing magnitude of energy consumed by communications technology and data centers comes from Anders Andrae, senior researcher at Huawei Technologies in Sweden. At the October 2017 Nordic Digital Business Summit Andrae forecast that communications technology may account for more than 20 percent of global energy consumption (20.7%) by 2025, accounting for 5.5% of the world’s total carbon emissions. These numbers represented the expected case scenario taking into account future energy efficiencies.

In respect to growing the exponential growth of data centers, Andrae cautions that data center energy consumption could increase a staggering 15-fold by 2030, amounting to roughly 11% of the global demand.



The share of ICT of global electricity usage: 2015 to 2025 with and without high global energy efficiency gains [p. 18, Andrae, Anders, 2017/10/05, Total Consumer Power Consumption Forecast]
“The share of ICT of global electricity usage: 2015 to 2025 with and without high global energy efficiency gains” [p. 18, Andrae, Anders, 2017/10/05, Total Consumer Power Consumption Forecast]
[p. 18, Andrae, Anders, 2017/10/05, Total Consumer Power Consumption Forecast]


In Andrae’s worst-case scenario, it is suggested that communication technologies could use as much as 51% of global electricity in 2030. In this scenario, “CT [communication technologies] electricity usage could contribute up to 23% of the globally released greenhouse gas emissions in 2030”.

[Annual electricity efficiency (EE) improvements were calculated at 15% (best), 10% (expected), and 5% (worst). From 2022, for EE only, 5% is assumed possible for all scenarios as the authors expect it will become more difficult to improve the electricity efficiency via Moore’s Law.] [p. 28, Andrae, A.S.G.; Edler, T. On Global Electricity Usage of Communication Technology: Trends to 2030. Challenges 2015, 6, 117-157.]

“The results shown in Figure 9c imply that the data centers and FAN [Fixed Access Networks] could drive a staggering 66% of the global CT electricity use in 2030, with fixed access Wi-Fi 15% and data centers 26%.” [p. 24, Andrae, A.S.G.; Edler, T. On Global Electricity Usage of Communication Technology: Trends to 2030. Challenges 2015, 6, 117-157.]
Figure 8. Share of communication technology of global electricity usage 2010–2030 As shown in Figure 8 [], the share of CT Sectors, depending on scenario, in 2010 is 8%–14%, in 2020 6%–21% and in 2030 8%–51%, respectively.' [p. 22, Andrae, A.S.G.; Edler, T. On Global Electricity Usage of Communication Technology: Trends to 2030. Challenges 2015, 6, 117-157.]
Figure 8. “Share of communication technology of global electricity usage 2010–2030 As shown in Figure 8 [], the share of CT Sectors, depending on scenario, in 2010 is 8%–14%, in 2020 6%–21% and in 2030 8%–51%, respectively.’ [p. 22, Andrae, A.S.G.; Edler, T. On Global Electricity Usage of Communication Technology: Trends to 2030. Challenges 2015, 6, 117-157.]


[p. 21, The share of different sections of ICT of global electricity use in 2015 and 2025, Andrae, Anders, 2017/10/05, Total Consumer Power Consumption Forecast]
[p. 21, The share of different sections of ICT of global electricity use in 2015 and 2025, Andrae, Anders, 2017/10/05, Total Consumer Power Consumption Forecast]
[Andrae, Anders, 2017/10/05, Total Consumer Power Consumption Forecast]


In regard to the Internet of Things, Andrae suggests that billions of internet-connected devices alone could produce 3.5% of global emissions within a ten year timeline, growing to 14% of global emissions by 2040. [Source]

And as bleak as these scenarios are (with even the best case scenarios projecting substantial increases in emissions) – the overall situation is much worse for one simple reason: the authors’ reliance on renewable energies as a means of mitigating overall impact (damage):

“However, until 2030, globally-generated renewable electricity is likely to exceed the electricity demand of all networks and data centers.” [Abstract, On Global Electricity Usage of Communication Technology: Trends to 2030]
“We believe that CT driven optimization of the electricity systems is a strong trend and a prerequisite for renewable power sources.” [p. 17, On Global Electricity Usage of Communication Technology: Trends to 2030]
“However, the trend of using renewable power is strong [157,158] and likely many data centers can be run GHG efficient, even if they do not find ways to reduce the absolute electricity usage.” [p. 17, On Global Electricity Usage of Communication Technology: Trends to 2030]
“To mitigate the worst-case scenario for climate change related to CT, the challenges related to introducing renewable electricity need to be overcome.” [p. 27, On Global Electricity Usage of Communication Technology: Trends to 2030]
“It seems though that planned power saving measures and innovation will be able to keep the electricity consumption of ICT and the World under control.” [p. 25, 2017, Total Consumer Power Consumption Forecast]
“Despite evident risks, it seems though that planned power saving measures and innovation will be able to keep the electricity consumption of ICT and the World under some kind of control.” [p. 2, 2019, Projecting the chiaroscuro of the electricity use of communication and computing from 2018 to 2030]
Yet, when one acknowledges the reality that industrial scale renewable energy is not sustainable – a key premise in modelling the ecological impacts of data centers (minimizing impact) – all such assumptions go straight out the window.

Here we can add that Andrae predicted that data centers on their own could produce 1.9Gt (or 3.2% of the global total) of carbon emissions by 2025. [Source] The DXC Technology white paper published in November, 2016 [Data centers play key role in Reducing GHG emissions] estimated that while consuming approx. 3 percent of global electricity, data centers worldwide already accounted for approximately 2% of total GHG emissions:

“Worldwide, it is estimated that data centers consume about 3 percent of the global electric supply and account for about 2 percent of total GHG emissions. That’s about the same as the entire airline industry. Producing electricity consumed by data centers will result in the release of 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 2020, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.” [Source]
What becomes lost in discussion, amidst a declared planetary emergency, is the fact that we are adding exponentially to our energy consumption, cancelling out any real emission reductions. The massive growth of data centers that began in the US is now standard in Europe, with hyperscale data centers now expanding into South Asia where average year round temperatures for the humid region hover around 27 degrees Celsius. All while according to studies, approx. 40 percent of the total energy that data centers consume is due to the sensitive cooling [4] requirements of IT technologies. July 9, 2019: “With a projected compound annual growth rate of 13 percent, APAC [Asia Pacific] could eventually surpass the United States and European market.” [Source] In South Asia, a region of deep poverty where 20% of the world’s population reside, 2017 research suggests “that by the end of this century climate change could lead to summer heat waves with levels of heat and humidity that exceed what humans can survive without protection.” [Source]

At the May 2018 Around the World Conference in Canada, Andrae reiterated that ICT infrastructure cannot slow its overall electricity use by 2025, even with most optimistic improvements in data center and network technology. In 2019, Andrae increased his projection: “ICT infrastructure cannot slow its overall electricity use until 2030 and it will use several times more TWh than today. [p. 3, Projecting the chiaroscuro of the electricity use of communication and computing from 2018 to 2030, February, 2019]

Based on the aforementioned information (in addition to that which follows), it is safe to suggest that the energy consumed by data centers worldwide today is an extremely conservative 400-600 TWh – in line with 3-4% of all electricity produced on the planet – and far exceeding the greenhouse gas emissions produced by aviation.

In February 2019, Andrae published an update of his calculations and forecasts presented in 2015. In this study Andrae suggests we may see an increase in the energy demand of data centers worldwide to 1,929 TWh by 2030. For this calculation, Andrae calculated the global energy consumption of data centres in 2018 at 211 TWh. [Andrae, Anders, 2019/02/28, Predictions on the way to 2030 of internet’s electricity use]

On January 2020, CBC News reported that Andrae now expects that the world’s data centers alone will account for a colossal 651 TWh of electricity in the next year:

“Anders Andrae, a researcher at Huawei Technologies Sweden whose estimates are often cited, told CBC News in an email he expects the world’s data centres alone will devour up to 651 terawatt-hours of electricity in the next year. That’s nearly as much electricity as Canada’s entire energy sector produces. And it’s just the beginning.”
[Jan 2, 2020, ‘Completely unsustainable’: How streaming and other data demands take a toll on the environment] [International Journal of Green Technology, 2019, Comparison of Several Simplistic High-Level Approaches for Estimating the Global Energy and Electricity Use of ICT Networks and Data Centers, Anders S.G. Andrae]
In 2018, the total amount of electricity generated from the wind industry was 1 263 TWh, with the total from solar industry constituting 562 TWh. [5]

Corporate Damage Control – Hyperscale Greenwash​

“We’ll also need vigorous development and deployment of emerging technologies — such as energy storage, advanced nuclear, and carbon capture and storage — that boost the availability of carbonfree energy around the clock.”
— Google: Moving toward 24×7 Carbon-Free Energy at Google Data Centers: Progress and Insights, Oct 2018
“Hyperscalers” such as Amazon, Google and Microsoft gloss over the growing concerns over their massive energy consumption by securing renewable-power purchase agreements. With unlimited budgets for public relations campaigns communication strategies, branding, and marketing, the corporate entities heavily publicize commitments to large-scale renewable energy initiatives. “net zero”, and “carbon negative” storytelling. Corporate press releases boast of commitments toward 100 percent renewable energy, as well as the promotion of investments in “*carbon free” energy sources. On September 19 2019, Google, which identifies itself as the “largest corporate buyer of renewable energy in the world”, announced they had made “the biggest corporate purchase of renewable energy in history”. These investments enable Google to declare it matches 100% of its global annual electricity consumption (for all global operations including data centers), through direct purchases of renewable energy. In layman’s terms – this is called offsetting – without mention of the word itself. It is nothing new and not nearly as exciting as Google would have you believe. Referred to as “CO2 colonialism” by indigenous peoples, offsetting is the means to privatize the skies and Earth’s forests while continuing to expand emissions.

[“Each Google facility is connected to its regional power grid just like any other electricity consumer; the power mix in each region usually includes some carbon-free resources (e.g. wind, solar, hydro, nuclear), but also carbon-based resources like coal, natural gas, and oil. * We define carbon-free energy as any type of electricity generation that does not directly emit carbon dioxide. This includes renewable like solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, and biomass. Nuclear power is also carbon free. In the future, our framework can be extended to other technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, that are yet to be deployed at scale but could enable carbon-free power generation from additional sources.] [Source: Google: Moving toward 24×7 Carbon-Free Energy at Google Data Centers: Progress and Insights, October 2018]

Apple announced in 2018 that all of its facilities worldwide including its data centers are now powered by renewable energy. By saturating the public relations spin with never-ending references to wind and solar, this greenwash is made palatable to the liberal class – the non-profit industrial complex having successfully framed these two technologies as “clean”. The “carbon free” energy sources that do not make the headlines are those most sought by the corporate sector: biomass, nuclear, and capture carbon and storage (CCS).

“Amazon committed to achieve “net zero” emissions by 2040, which means it would need to offset any remaining emissions from its operations through investments in carbon removal projects… Amazon is following in the footsteps of another Seattle-area tech behemoth. Earlier this year, Microsoft announced it would spend $1 billion on “carbon reduction, capture, and removal technologies,” as part of an effort to offset the software company’s emissions across its entire history.”
June 23, 2020, Amazon creates a $2 billion climate fund, as it struggles to cut its own emissions
And despite the fact that “renewable energy” is neither “clean”, nor “green”, nor “emissions free”, as marketed, on September 18 2019, Fortune reported “only 12 percent of Amazon’s Loudoun County data centers and 4.0 percent of Google’s are powered by renewable energy, despite their promise to shift to 100 percent renewable energy”.

Amazon owns nearly half of the cloud market. In July, 2019, it was reported that the annual revenues of Amazon Web Services, had grown to $15.5 billion in the global cloud infrastructure market with revenues of $32.4 billion. Data center industry leaders recognize Amazon Web Services (AWS) as “the invisible foundation of much of the internet.” Microsoft sits at second place, with 15% of the market share. [Source] This same week, Amazon launched a network of new data centers situated in Bahrain, increasing what Amazon cites as “availability zones” to 69 zones across 22 geographic regions, with plans to build nine new zones in Indonesia, Italy and South Africa. Today, Amazon Web Services spans “77 availability zones within 24 geographic regions around the world, and has announced plans for 15 more Availability Zones and 5 more AWS Regions in India, Indonesia, Japan, Spain, and Switzerland.” [Source] Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos, is a co-founder of Breakthrough Energy, launched in 2015 (alongside Mission Innovation at COP21 in Paris), with a keen focus on both nuclear and carbon capture and storage technology now being marketed to the public (a key aspect of expanding data center energy consumption). Between March and October, 2020, during the said pandemic, US billionaires saw their “net worth” rise by almost $1 trillion with Bezos on top with a net worth of approx. 200 billion USD. Here we can infer, that the person whose corporation now leads in mass global land degradation, resource use, energy consumption and subsequent greenhouse gas emissions, is also the wealthiest. All while Amazon continues to exploit its workers. All while those in the Global South face literal starvation. This is your new “stakeholder capitalism” as touted by World Economic Forum et al.

On September 14, 2020, Google released its most asinine statement to date: “As of today, we have eliminated Google’s entire carbon legacy (covering all our operational emissions before we became carbon neutral in 2007) through the purchase of high-quality carbon offsets. This means that Google’s lifetime net carbon footprint is now zero. We’re pleased to be the first major company to get this done, today.”

Here we must note that “net zero” has nothing to do with zero emissions, that carbon offsets, an instrument of imperialism and colonialism, do nothing to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions – and that Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, are all co-founders of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition (launched in 2015), which houses a $1 billion energy venture fund. Other co-founders of the coalition include aforementioned Jack Ma, and Marc Benioff. Breakthrough’s Mission Innovation, with its focus on nuclear, has partnered with 24 member states in addition to the EU.

“The [Google] white paper also highlights other technologies that could help bridge the gap between renewable power’s inherent intermittency and the consistent needs of its facilities, including “advanced nuclear, enhanced geothermal, low-impact hydro, long-duration storage, green hydrogen, and carbon capture and storage.” These are the same list of technologies that utilities, states and countries with zero-carbon commitments are planning to rely on to reach their goals.”
Sept 14, 2020, Google Pledges 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy by 2030 [Emphasis added]
More to the point – even if renewable energies at scale were in fact a solution (which they are not), effectively replacing fossil fuel energies and lowering greenhouse gas emissions – this newly produced energy is effectively being devoured by the ICT sector. Here we witness the Jevons paradox; the easier it is to consume the product, the greater the increase in consumption. In 2019, coal was the world’s largest source of electricity, representing 35.18% of the total (despite a 3% year-on-year fall), followed by natural gas (23.52%), hydro (16.54%), nuclear (10.52%), wind (5.44%), other fossil fuels (3.47%). Solar accounted for 2.71%, biomass and waste accounted for 2.24%, with “other renewable” coming in at 0.4%. [Source]

Damage Control by the Non-Profit Industrial Complex​

Academia, propped up by media – financed and owned by the ruling class – reacts swiftly in such instances. They are aided by those that worship at the altar of capital. [6] A broad consensus is formed that the growing trepidation surrounding exponential energy use and greenhouse gas emissions – corresponding with an exponential growth of data centers – is unfounded. To counter the concerns they cite rapid efficiency gains, and growth in renewable energies at scale (being built into the assumptions). The more the information generates concern, the greater the response by the gatekeepers. In this particular instance the issue is quickly reframed, utilizing the argument that the massive uptake in energy consumption will result in future efficiencies, or, that the growth is countered by rapid increased efficiencies, adding that cloud providers (such as Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, Salesforce, etc.) are rapidly moving to zero emissions sources. A 2008 report produced by the World Wildlife Fund is an example of one such paper cited as a response to Andrae’s bleak assessment: ” A report [May 2008] from the World Wildlife Fund estimated that by 2030 efficiencies from smart devices and systems can potentially reduce CO2 emissions by as much as 8 gigatons, a figure approaching one quarter of total global emissions in 2018.” Here it can be noted that the World Wildlife Fund, which bears responsibility for the displacement and torture of Indigenous and tribal peoples (see the work of Survival International), is leading the charge to financialize nature in partnership with the World Economic Forum and other conservation NGOs.

“One has to search very hard to find a truthful statement from WWF. Lies have become their stock in trade.”
—conservation ecologist Dr. Mordecai Ogada

“The drivers for more energy use are simply too great to be offset by efficiency gains.”
Jan 2020, Data center energy use goes up and up and up
The “decoupling” of growth and greenhouse gas emissions has become the preferred method of storytelling by global institutions such as UN-WEF et al., reverberated by those serving capital.

Another prime example is the public relations effort at Ericson: “Ericson, ICT and the climate – Have you ever worried how your online activities impact the climate? According to this report, the true impact may be a lot smaller than you think. [Source] The ICT sector’s carbon footprint could be reduced by over 80 percent if all electricity consumed came from renewable energy sources. [p. 3] 50 years – For the carbon emissions of a person making a transatlantic return flight, a smartphone could be used for over 50 years.” [p. 5] [A quick guide to your digital carbon footprint Deconstructing Information and Communication Technology’s carbon emissions, February 2020] In theory, that a smartphone (of obsolete design) could be used for over 50 years, is perhaps true – yet in reality, Westerners with money (and more importantly, access to debt), replace their smartphones with a new one every two years on average.

In addition to the magic trick of 7.5 million data centers coming online – with little to no added impact to global energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions, is the complete omission of embodied energies and vast “natural resources” (biological communities) extracted (plundered) for the infrastructure. The stunning growth of the data center industry and its increasing demand for energy presents a stark ecological cost to our natural world – with ecosystems already collapsing due to the effects of industrial civilization, driven by the capitalist economic system. It is a tragic irony that this acceleration commences alongside alarm over climate change and protection of biodiversity feigned by the ruling class and industry.


Based on the aforementioned information (in addition to that which follows), it is safe to suggest that the energy consumed by data centers worldwide today is an extremely conservative 400-600 TWh – in line with 3-4% of all electricity produced on the planet – and far exceeding the greenhouse gas emissions produced by aviation.

In February 2019, Andrae published an update of his calculations and forecasts presented in 2015. In this study Andrae suggests we may see an increase in the energy demand of data centers worldwide to 1,929 TWh by 2030. For this calculation, Andrae calculated the global energy consumption of data centres in 2018 at 211 TWh. [Andrae, Anders, 2019/02/28, Predictions on the way to 2030 of internet’s electricity use]

On January 2020, CBC News reported that Andrae now expects that the world’s data centers alone will account for a colossal 651 TWh of electricity in the next year:
 

Drareg

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
3,235
The hilarity of this article, can you imagine what Greta Thunbergs insta posts consume, in fact think about the energy consumed by all the UN, WEF, Governments worldwide and celebrity UN influencers on social media promoting the "green new deal".
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡


High energy: Study finds a single Cristiano Ronaldo Instagram post consumes as much power as TEN UK households for ONE YEAR​

 

JudiBlueHen

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Messages
267
So if you add the ramping up electric vehicles/trucks/buses, when do we run out of power? And how much do us poor consumers get to pay per kWh?
 

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
193
So if you add the ramping up electric vehicles/trucks/buses, when do we run out of power? And how much do us poor consumers get to pay per kWh?
There was a study out of MIT a couple of years ago which looked at what it would take to make California’s electricity grid 100% renewable. Given the intermittency problem of solar and wind, capacity would have to be so overbuilt that the final cost to the consumer for electricity would be anywhere from $1.20 to $2 per kWh. At that price, commercially produced electricity is not a viable (affordable) energy product. Economic activity would grind to a halt. The only part of the green energy narrative that is potentially viable is nuclear - basically do what France did in the 1980s. The rest of it is a (very expensive) pipe dream.
 

Quelsatron

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
235
"""centre""" party leader annie lööf allowed google and facebook to set up huge server halls in my country, with very cheap electricity. These companies don't pay taxes either, and I don't imagine the server halls employ very many of our citizens. We even face large electricity shortages, so the energy is especially important. She is also one of the few guests of the bilderberg meeting, despite being head of a measly 8,6% party.
 

Drareg

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
3,235
If they wanted a "cleaner" energy source they would use nuclear, nuclear is far from clean or flawless but they believe it is, the question is why not use it then?
I believe they know it’s not as profitable as wind farms, solar etc, more money can be accessed by having a multitude of projects, renewable energy is a trillion dollar market, they are making markets for profit, nuclear energy alone doesn’t justify trillions being spent, we the peasants would also benefit if we went straight to nuclear, nuclear should lower the cost of energy because the cost of maintaining nuclear will be lower than a multitude of other clean energy projects, the trillions left over can be put into social projects to benefit mankind, ruling class LOLS to that idea.

They are pumping these projects under the guise of "climate emergency" just like 9/11 and covid19 it frees up trillions to be put into projects, if said projects fail it’s under the guise of an emergency and saving the planet, all will be forgiven, the salaries and profit made by companies who put said renewables in place will keep the wealth acquired, it’s another wealth transfer.
 

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
193
If they wanted a "cleaner" energy source they would use nuclear, nuclear is far from clean or flawless but they believe it is, the question is why not use it then?
I believe they know it’s not as profitable as wind farms, solar etc, more money can be accessed by having a multitude of projects, renewable energy is a trillion dollar market, they are making markets for profit, nuclear energy alone doesn’t justify trillions being spent, we the peasants would also benefit if we went straight to nuclear, nuclear should lower the cost of energy because the cost of maintaining nuclear will be lower than a multitude of other clean energy projects, the trillions left over can be put into social projects to benefit mankind, ruling class LOLS to that idea.

They are pumping these projects under the guise of "climate emergency" just like 9/11 and covid19 it frees up trillions to be put into projects, if said projects fail it’s under the guise of an emergency and saving the planet, all will be forgiven, the salaries and profit made by companies who put said renewables in place will keep the wealth acquired, it’s another wealth transfer.
Wind and solar aren’t profitable - without subsidies, they can barely bring a break even return over a 20 year project life, and that’s with this zero percent interest environment. The only one of the lot that’s probably viable is (at least in theory) commercial scale concentrated solar, the type where they use mirrors reflecting sunlight to heat a tower. PV solar, especially the residential stuff, is an absolute joke. Without government subsidies it would be completely non-viable. Windmills generally break even after 20 years which means the project pays off right when you need to replace the asset and start over. Without the feed in tariff (government subsidy), the wind power industry has openly admitted that new installation would literally cease and drop to zero. Doesn’t sound like a great investment, does it?

Nuclear isn’t profitable because it was regulated to death after the environmentalists started lobbying against it in the 1970s. The only places where nuclear industry is still thriving and spending money on R&D are France, Russia and China. There are some interesting reactor designs in the experimental stages with the breeder reactor technology and MSR technology but it needs a lot more effort and money to really bring it to life and make these new technologies commercially viable. The US has more or less abandoned this field, which is a pity.
 

Drareg

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
3,235
Wind and solar aren’t profitable - without subsidies, they can barely bring a break even return over a 20 year project life, and that’s with this zero percent interest environment. The only one of the lot that’s probably viable is (at least in theory) commercial scale concentrated solar, the type where they use mirrors reflecting sunlight to heat a tower. PV solar, especially the residential stuff, is an absolute joke. Without government subsidies it would be completely non-viable. Windmills generally break even after 20 years which means the project pays off right when you need to replace the asset and start over. Without the feed in tariff (government subsidy), the wind power industry has openly admitted that new installation would literally cease and drop to zero. Doesn’t sound like a great investment, does it?

Nuclear isn’t profitable because it was regulated to death after the environmentalists started lobbying against it in the 1970s. The only places where nuclear industry is still thriving and spending money on R&D are France, Russia and China. There are some interesting reactor designs in the experimental stages with the breeder reactor technology and MSR technology but it needs a lot more effort and money to really bring it to life and make these new technologies commercially viable. The US has more or less abandoned this field, which is a pity.

The subsidy is the profit, I should have clarified that, with the coming melding of government and the private sector via stakeholder capitalism money will be printed in the name of saving the planet.
The central banks will print the money and it will circulate into the hands of the ruling class, nobody cares if it works efficiently as long as it can be maintained for show, it doesn’t matter if it generates much profit because a subsidy will do just fine.

The NGO complex and "non profit" sector are billion dollar industries that receive subsidy’s, parasites like professional activists and academics are making money from it.
 

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
193
The subsidy is the profit, I should have clarified that, with the coming melding of government and the private sector via stakeholder capitalism money will be printed in the name of saving the planet.
The central banks will print the money and it will circulate into the hands of the ruling class, nobody cares if it works efficiently as long as it can be maintained for show, it doesn’t matter if it generates much profit because a subsidy will do just fine.

The NGO complex and "non profit" sector are billion dollar industries that receive subsidy’s, parasites like professional activists and academics are making money from it.
You can print money, but you can’t print energy, goods, and services ;)

I don’t know if the intelligentsia don’t understand this (never underestimate them) or if they’re fully aware and just don’t care, because like you wrote, it’s just for show and the important thing is to keep the facade propped up.
 

JudiBlueHen

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Messages
267
You can print money, but you can’t print energy, goods, and services ;)

I don’t know if the intelligentsia don’t understand this (never underestimate them) or if they’re fully aware and just don’t care, because like you wrote, it’s just for show and the important thing is to keep the facade propped up.
There are lots of us and few of them. They think we will keep on providing energy, goods and services no matter how much they skim off the cream. And they think robots and AI can replace most of us sooner or later.
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
bzmazu Big Tech Pushes Digital ID Cards to Track Vaccinations, Shopping, Banking Activity and More Political Talk, Alternative World Theories 20
Energizer Migrating From The Big Tech Platforms Political Talk, Alternative World Theories 2
Lokzo 3 Big Supplementation Mistakes You Should Know Supplements 2
bzmazu The Official COVID-19 Death Toll is a Big Fat Fraud Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 0
grithin Helping The Enemy, Big Pharma Society 15
A I have big problems /few questions Ask For Help or Advice 20
bzmazu March 8, 2021 Print This Post Print This Post California Senator Dr. Richard Pan Anointed by Big Pharma Media to Start “Domestic Terrorist” Campaign Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 7
R Is fortified wheat that big of a deal? Diet, Recipes 12
P Life After Google: The Fall of Big Data and the Rise of the Blockchain Economy by George Gilder Book Recommendations 9
A I' m a 18 year old guy with big problems Ask For Help or Advice 59
metabolizm Big Meals Vs. Small Meals Ask For Help or Advice 2
J The Low-Fat Era - A Big Fat Lie? Diet 5
T Whatever Fixes Baldness Is Going To Transform The Entire Body In A Big Way, Right? Hair & Nails 39
E Movers And Shakers Behind The Big Reset Society 8
D Big Drop In Body Temperature While Walking Thyroid and Hormones 9
ScurveDream Long Chins, Big Ears, Long/narrow Faces = GH, Estrogen? Ask For Help or Advice 1
J Dr. Robert Willner Talks About Big Pharma + Fauci + AIDS Cause Testimonials 2
bzmazu Big Pharma Price-Gouging During Covid-19 Pandemic Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 0
Jam "Big Pharma "Criminal" Influence On Research Exposed In Recording" Articles & Scientific Studies 1
jzeno Womp Womp: NIH DROPS Big Study Of Big Pharma Fauci's Love Child, Remdesivir Breaking News 1
haidut Pregnenolone Safe And Effective In Big Human Trial For Back Pain Scientific Studies 0
Diokine There Are Extraordinarily Big Waves Being Made In The Understanding Of Reality Right Now Articles & Scientific Studies 17
S About To Start Finasteride. Big Mistake? Male Issues 11
P Big/distended Stomach, Not Fat Or Gas Diet 31
J Big Changes Since Using HGH Homeopathic Gel Mind, Sleep, Stress 5
R What Singer, In Your Opinion, Has A Very Big Lung Capacity? Miscellaneous 14
postman Big Testosterone Boost From Copper Minerals 9
E Is Caffeine Tolerance A Big Deal? Coffee 0
Philomath My Cancer Log: “The Big F.U. To Traditional Medicine” Logs 36
Makrosky Rockefeller, Big Pharma Facing $1 Billion Lawsuit For Intentionally Infecting People With Syphilis Breaking News 1
Whataboutbob All Meat Paleo Carnivore Diets Are Going Mainstream Big Time ! Meat 123
A Water Retention And Potassium: Big Changes In 2 Days! What's Going On? Ray Peat Topics 5
bzmazu 271 New Vaccines In Big Pharma’s Pipeline Supplements, Pharmaceutical Drugs 1
O "The Great Prostate Hoax: How Big Medicine Hijacked The PSA Test And Caused A Public Health Disaster Society 1
JustAGuy Eating Fast Vs Slow / Big Vs Small Meals Ask For Help or Advice 5
E Results Of Big Omega 3 Study On Heart Scientific Studies 4
BTD What Is The Best Big Brand Orange Juice? Fruits & Fruit Juice 7
J How Big Of A Role Does The Lymphatic System Play? Hair & Nails 17
Johhny Tazzle HEy Guys And Gals(sorry Im From The Country) I Want Help Big Time Ask For Help or Advice 2
haidut Everything Big Data Claims To Know About You May Be Wrong Scientific Studies 5
T Big Pharma Vaccine Billionaire Just Bought The LA Times Articles & Scientific Studies 2
T Big Data Tool Predicts Best Lung Cancer Treatment Articles & Scientific Studies 0
Mito Wisconsin Man, 64, Eats His 30,000TH McDonald's Big Mac The Ray Peat Forum Lounge 25
S Dosing T3, Why Such A Big Gap In Opinions And Science? T3 20
E Big Mistake. Now How To Fix! Natural Dessicated Thyroid 3
ddjd Resting Pulse Rate In Low 40s. Big Concern? Ask For Help or Advice 1
Albina Big, Ugly, Chalazion On Upper Eyelid Skin 5
biggirlkisss Big Acne On Neck Ask For Help or Advice 1
m_arch Gbolduev's Big Post That Got Him Banned The Ray Peat Forum Lounge 333
haidut The Big Study On Curing Heart Condition Through Genetic Editing May Be Wrong Scientific Studies 3

Similar threads

Top