It's true the west's oil lobby is very strong and is smearing nuclear and other alternatives, but because of the threat to their continued existence and profits not because the co2 thing is a fairy tale.
China has only just reached peak emissions, no energy production produces zero emissions and the heating we now have is locked in. Globally emissions are still rising. Everything the west does is to accelerates it though agricultural failures will hit the Global South first.
Cheap energy is all very lovely but people gotta eat.
There is no cabal controlling us with climate and civilisation doesn't just rest on increased economic production.
Yes I can appreciate that the oil lobby is strong and surely they have an interest to block nuclear.
They themselves invested in wind and solar to fake that they buy the CO2 fairy tale and fake a green image to the environmental movement.
All the while knowing that wind and solar are hopeless and will never be a serious competition.
It distracts from the real competition indeed.
That is their story.
So their interests align with those of the cabal.
But that does not subtract or eliminate the interest of the cabal.
The carrying out of their ideology rests the CO2 control knob.
It rests on the belief by most on the CO2-climate-substantial-human-influence fairy tale.
Every serious self-respecting researcher that makes serious effort into researching this topic will will arrive to the conclusion that it is a scam.
No doubt will remain.
And then the question is why?
Well the cabal has written it themselves in their “The First Global Revolution” book of 1991 following up the Club of Rome 1972 work titled “Limits to Growth”.
They write on page 115:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
Let that sink in.
“searching for an enemy”.
Why?
“the idea”
An idea? No proof? An idea?
And on page 110 they give a “hint”. They write:
“…democracy is no longer well suited…”
In other words on to a new economic system, a technocracy in which individuals have little to no freedom.
This is the goal.
And coming back to your remark of oil industry.
The just mentioned disgusting ideology is also supported by very wealthy persons that are in oil industry, such as Standard Oil.
This is so convoluted I can't make sense of it. Sounds like a Dan Brown novel but when the twists don't add up at the end.
There is so much evidence that humans are causing climate change. No self-respecting researcher who is not a shill can deny this. But the propaganda from oil and animal ag have got everyone believing it's not true. This was boosted by the 'covid' debacle and rehashing of the Club of Rome initial fears about oil running out. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/what-is-the-heartland-institute?utm_source=publication-search
Absolutely We are contributing to climate change…~4%. But when it comes to actions that are chronically truly and devastatingly ignorant, nothing beats us when it comes to disrupting and degrading ecosystems, when we have the potential to do the opposite yet old habits die hard, sad and afraid.
Economically sustainable is not the same thing as ecologically sustainable, especially for vulnerable sacks of water such as humans are. No tech is emissions free and free tech means production increases, increasing emissions.
'Long-term' success= a few more decades before the agricultural crisis kicks in .
First, you have to unpack the propaganda. Most (if not all) technologies marketed as ecologically sustainable are frauds, just like Climate Change is a fraud.
Fyi, https://energyfromthorium.com/ has a bunch of in-depth discussions about the technology, including the non-trivial engineering challenges associated with building and operating molten salt reactors.
Thank you, Professor Diesen. I've been following nuclear power developments throughout my career (in radiation protection) and it's nice to see that thorium is starting to get some momentum behind it. There's been some noise in the US but all of the excitement surrounds fusion energy, which I'm still skeptical of. China is beating the world in nuclear energy innovation (only Rosatom comes close) and I can't wait for it to be ubiquitous in Asia.
Yes, China has it and has finally made it work. But how long did it take to get there?
30, 40, 50 years..😳
China is not going to tell you their secrets.
That is why this is revolutionary only in theory in other countries than China.
And if other countries are going to throw science and money into developing Thorium into energy production, it will take a lot of time, money and political commitments. The problem is not money or science but unrealeble policians of course which still are talking about solar, wind and battery, climate change, CO2 climate gases and stuff that doesn’t make any sense.
How do you expect those people to listen to common sense when they never have done so in the past??
Sorry but this is not school. This is false scientific propaganda that has dominated the mainstream media and the leading governments in the western world. So I suppose you have been fooled by all of them for decades. This will be a significant challenge for you to get your head around because it has been your “proven” truth for such a long time. Sorry but you have been lied to by your authorities. I suggest that you go back to school and read some litteratur by those who criticise the hypothesis of man made climate change. 67% of the research of climate change do not support the hypothesis of man made climate change and that co2 is a climate gas.
I must also ad that oil and gas are not a fossil fuel because it is not created by the remnants of dead dinosaurs and living organisms millions of years ago but rather a creation from the process of the inner core of the earth which suggest that this energy source is practically infinite.
Sorry again to disappoint you. If you read it again that was not what wrote:” oil and gas are not a fossil fuel because it (oil&gas) is not created by the remnants of dead dinosaurs and living organisms millions of years ago but rather a creation from the process of the inner core of the earth which suggest that this energy source is practically infinite”. If you investigate it closely I’m sure you will find it chockingly interesting.
Very rare good news. This needs to be understood in conjunction with Chinese battery manufacturer CATL's recent announcement of its new Sodium Ion batteries which are expected to be shipping in electric cars from December this year. These batteries in a car for example can give a 500KM range in just 5 or 10 minutes charging. The huge deal about Sodium Ion that changes everything is that CATL are claiming that they have a 10,000+ recycle charging lifetime. This means that in principle the electric power source of a car could last for 5 million KM or 3.1 million miles. I think the world record for an ICE car mileage is a Volvo P1800 in the US that has done 3 million miles. They are also 30% cheaper than lithium alternatives and operate well at very low and high temperatures. They are also surprisingly safe and have been subject to extreme abuse in testing even down to be passed through a table saw without catching fire.
Cheap thorium energy and cheap long lasting batteries really does promise to release the world from its dependence on dwindling fossil fuels. If only Western leaders were smart enough to realize this as they have no realistic energy policies at all as things stand!
Yes cheaper energy is great and so are sodium batteries. However, the world is still made of finite resources and EVs still produce emissions. And climate instability is still increasing.
I feel like I'm raining on people's parade like those who believed that Trump wanted peace.
Producing more things, even if more cheaply and more cleanly, is not good news. It's foolish and dangerous to believe so.
Cheap energy is good of course but the goal is “free energy” in the future.
“Free energy”(“Tesla energy”) is also a discovery which produce much cheaper and simpler energy production than this.
Problem is that it’s forbidden by the global energy industry so if you try building it and selling it, you either get killed or arrested by the government or their hired agencies.
Yes, we are still living in the dark age of Kali Yuga. 🤣🤣🤣
The energy industry is obviously not global. The fossil fuel industry has a very powerful lobby in the US, they control its vassals in the Middle East and also create wars for the arms industry. The US based oil cartels blew up NS2 to prevent affordable gas from Russia getting to the EU, selling it LNG across the oceans. They spend a lot of money on smearing wind, solar and nuclear as well as denying climate change exists. They're going to war with China to prevent her providing the world with greener energy.
Free energy is a nice idea. But energy is only used to increase production; using finite resources. Thorium is far from emissions free in its production of energy and the co2 already in the atmosphere has locked in about 3 degrees of heating- making agriculture increasingly difficult, especially in the global south.
People seem to forget that we're humans who are adapted to eat food that's grown in a small window of stable climate that is rapidly being left behind.
Of course, plutonium is used in nuclear weapons, which is why it became the basis of uranium-based reactors as plutonium is the by-product of nuclear power generation., hence this is why thorium was ditched. So once more, war was the driving force.
"Concerning safety aspects, thorium reactors will generate less nuclear waste than their uranium equivalents. The radioactivity of their nuclear waste is also predicted to diminish to safe levels after a few hundred years, whereas nuclear waste produced by current reactors stays radioactive for thousands of years. This reduces the cost of managing the spent fuel and waste.
"More importantly, thorium is a fertile material, but not fissile. Fertile elements do not undergo fission reactions on their own, but upon irradiation in nuclear reactors, they can be converted into fissile material. This implies that thorium reactors can be shut down almost immediately by simply turning off the neutron source."
The west did not explore this because then the cabal could not use their CO2 fairy tale anymore.
The fairy tale they need to lure the people into a carbon-footprint accounting based CBDC.
And I predict the west will not adopt this technology because of this.
For this reason and for this reason alone.
It's true the west's oil lobby is very strong and is smearing nuclear and other alternatives, but because of the threat to their continued existence and profits not because the co2 thing is a fairy tale.
China has only just reached peak emissions, no energy production produces zero emissions and the heating we now have is locked in. Globally emissions are still rising. Everything the west does is to accelerates it though agricultural failures will hit the Global South first.
Cheap energy is all very lovely but people gotta eat.
There is no cabal controlling us with climate and civilisation doesn't just rest on increased economic production.
Good remark.
Yes I can appreciate that the oil lobby is strong and surely they have an interest to block nuclear.
They themselves invested in wind and solar to fake that they buy the CO2 fairy tale and fake a green image to the environmental movement.
All the while knowing that wind and solar are hopeless and will never be a serious competition.
It distracts from the real competition indeed.
That is their story.
So their interests align with those of the cabal.
But that does not subtract or eliminate the interest of the cabal.
The carrying out of their ideology rests the CO2 control knob.
It rests on the belief by most on the CO2-climate-substantial-human-influence fairy tale.
Every serious self-respecting researcher that makes serious effort into researching this topic will will arrive to the conclusion that it is a scam.
No doubt will remain.
And then the question is why?
Well the cabal has written it themselves in their “The First Global Revolution” book of 1991 following up the Club of Rome 1972 work titled “Limits to Growth”.
They write on page 115:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
Let that sink in.
“searching for an enemy”.
Why?
“the idea”
An idea? No proof? An idea?
And on page 110 they give a “hint”. They write:
“…democracy is no longer well suited…”
In other words on to a new economic system, a technocracy in which individuals have little to no freedom.
This is the goal.
And coming back to your remark of oil industry.
The just mentioned disgusting ideology is also supported by very wealthy persons that are in oil industry, such as Standard Oil.
This is so convoluted I can't make sense of it. Sounds like a Dan Brown novel but when the twists don't add up at the end.
There is so much evidence that humans are causing climate change. No self-respecting researcher who is not a shill can deny this. But the propaganda from oil and animal ag have got everyone believing it's not true. This was boosted by the 'covid' debacle and rehashing of the Club of Rome initial fears about oil running out. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/what-is-the-heartland-institute?utm_source=publication-search
The cabal is a psy-op created by oil interests https://jowaller.substack.com/p/the-wef-agenda-of-depopulation-and
There is no evidence at all that humans have a decisive contribution to climate change.
That we have some contribution is evident. It is an open door.
That is not the issue.
What matters is how much.
But they don’t know how much.
They cannot know.
And I can explain that to you in an embarrassingly simple way.
A thermometer gives a reading.
It does not and cannot tell the observer how much each of the degrees in the read out is caused by each of the many factors that contribute.
The thermometer is a black box in that respect.
To disentangle the influences humans normally carry out experiments in the laboratory.
Change one factor and see what happens to the temperature.
This obviously cannot be done with earth.
So how does one arrive at the conclusion that it is CO2 that predominantly or even substantially is causing global warming?
The scientists develop a model.
They to their very best to set it up as good as possible.
They put it on a computer.
They run it.
They change CO2 level and run it again.
They find that the computer gives higher temperatures.
They conclude, we were right all along.
They run it to calculate as function of time.
They see temperature rises with time.
They cheer and say, see CO2 is the evil.
Do you accept that?
I don’t.
Why?
Because what they put in they get out.
Bullshit in bullshit out.
How do we know if it is bullshit in?
We want to have the model calculation verified independently.
Predict something that is unexpected preferably and find out later that it is true.
Well this cannot be done.
Why?
Because we don’t have a twin earth with everything the same except CO2.
It is even worse.
Climate models deviate from reality in many aspects.
Although the models calculate a global average temperature versus time that increases , the model shows an increase faster than reality.
They run hot, people say.
That the models are wrong is another way of saying the same thing only more clearly.
Furthermore:
The models calculate the temperatures versus height and versus position over earth surface wrongly.
The models calculate the seasonal increases and decreases of ice formation at the poles wrongly.
So they cannot even get agreement after their multi-parameter sophisticated fit.
And then they claim to be able to predict properly?
Seriously?
Do you accept this?
I don’t.
You know what?
If you don’t believe me and don’t want to spend much time you can do something.
Look up the names of all the climate scientists that worked on the latest IPCC report.
Get their e-mail addresses.
Go and copy paste this text and send to all of them.
Ask them to refute this.
And be curious how many of them reply.
They should reply you know.
It is their job.
It is an important subject.
If they reply, check if they address the core of the argument rather than evading.
If you feel you need help?
Ask a physicist near you.
One that is neutral as regards to this subject,
Judge the answers together with him.
Just do it.
After that maybe you believe me.
Absolutely We are contributing to climate change…~4%. But when it comes to actions that are chronically truly and devastatingly ignorant, nothing beats us when it comes to disrupting and degrading ecosystems, when we have the potential to do the opposite yet old habits die hard, sad and afraid.
Nice overview. Vital geopolitical topic. Technology + state-backed long-term infrastructure = national success
Economically sustainable is not the same thing as ecologically sustainable, especially for vulnerable sacks of water such as humans are. No tech is emissions free and free tech means production increases, increasing emissions.
'Long-term' success= a few more decades before the agricultural crisis kicks in .
RE: ecologically sustainable
First, you have to unpack the propaganda. Most (if not all) technologies marketed as ecologically sustainable are frauds, just like Climate Change is a fraud.
Iran should develop thorium reactors...OTOH, they need nukes to fend of US imperialism.
Great info, knew about Thorium but never knew how advanced China was within this technology, cheers
The development regarding Thorium could have a profound impact on the US/Iran negotiations…
Fyi, https://energyfromthorium.com/ has a bunch of in-depth discussions about the technology, including the non-trivial engineering challenges associated with building and operating molten salt reactors.
Thank you, Professor Diesen. I've been following nuclear power developments throughout my career (in radiation protection) and it's nice to see that thorium is starting to get some momentum behind it. There's been some noise in the US but all of the excitement surrounds fusion energy, which I'm still skeptical of. China is beating the world in nuclear energy innovation (only Rosatom comes close) and I can't wait for it to be ubiquitous in Asia.
Yes, China has it and has finally made it work. But how long did it take to get there?
30, 40, 50 years..😳
China is not going to tell you their secrets.
That is why this is revolutionary only in theory in other countries than China.
And if other countries are going to throw science and money into developing Thorium into energy production, it will take a lot of time, money and political commitments. The problem is not money or science but unrealeble policians of course which still are talking about solar, wind and battery, climate change, CO2 climate gases and stuff that doesn’t make any sense.
How do you expect those people to listen to common sense when they never have done so in the past??
Climate change doesn't make sense? Maybe time to go back to school!
https://jowaller.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=publication-search
Sorry but this is not school. This is false scientific propaganda that has dominated the mainstream media and the leading governments in the western world. So I suppose you have been fooled by all of them for decades. This will be a significant challenge for you to get your head around because it has been your “proven” truth for such a long time. Sorry but you have been lied to by your authorities. I suggest that you go back to school and read some litteratur by those who criticise the hypothesis of man made climate change. 67% of the research of climate change do not support the hypothesis of man made climate change and that co2 is a climate gas.
I must also ad that oil and gas are not a fossil fuel because it is not created by the remnants of dead dinosaurs and living organisms millions of years ago but rather a creation from the process of the inner core of the earth which suggest that this energy source is practically infinite.
Blah blah blah. You've fallen hook line and sinker for every talking point.
Hydrocarbons (from trees and plants as well as animals) are practically infinite? What bollocks. You've lost the plot.
Sorry again to disappoint you. If you read it again that was not what wrote:” oil and gas are not a fossil fuel because it (oil&gas) is not created by the remnants of dead dinosaurs and living organisms millions of years ago but rather a creation from the process of the inner core of the earth which suggest that this energy source is practically infinite”. If you investigate it closely I’m sure you will find it chockingly interesting.
Very rare good news. This needs to be understood in conjunction with Chinese battery manufacturer CATL's recent announcement of its new Sodium Ion batteries which are expected to be shipping in electric cars from December this year. These batteries in a car for example can give a 500KM range in just 5 or 10 minutes charging. The huge deal about Sodium Ion that changes everything is that CATL are claiming that they have a 10,000+ recycle charging lifetime. This means that in principle the electric power source of a car could last for 5 million KM or 3.1 million miles. I think the world record for an ICE car mileage is a Volvo P1800 in the US that has done 3 million miles. They are also 30% cheaper than lithium alternatives and operate well at very low and high temperatures. They are also surprisingly safe and have been subject to extreme abuse in testing even down to be passed through a table saw without catching fire.
Cheap thorium energy and cheap long lasting batteries really does promise to release the world from its dependence on dwindling fossil fuels. If only Western leaders were smart enough to realize this as they have no realistic energy policies at all as things stand!
Sodium Ion batteries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0JC0EERYWw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCNY4kxNkqc
Yes cheaper energy is great and so are sodium batteries. However, the world is still made of finite resources and EVs still produce emissions. And climate instability is still increasing.
I feel like I'm raining on people's parade like those who believed that Trump wanted peace.
Producing more things, even if more cheaply and more cleanly, is not good news. It's foolish and dangerous to believe so.
Cheap energy is good of course but the goal is “free energy” in the future.
“Free energy”(“Tesla energy”) is also a discovery which produce much cheaper and simpler energy production than this.
Problem is that it’s forbidden by the global energy industry so if you try building it and selling it, you either get killed or arrested by the government or their hired agencies.
Yes, we are still living in the dark age of Kali Yuga. 🤣🤣🤣
The energy industry is obviously not global. The fossil fuel industry has a very powerful lobby in the US, they control its vassals in the Middle East and also create wars for the arms industry. The US based oil cartels blew up NS2 to prevent affordable gas from Russia getting to the EU, selling it LNG across the oceans. They spend a lot of money on smearing wind, solar and nuclear as well as denying climate change exists. They're going to war with China to prevent her providing the world with greener energy.
Free energy is a nice idea. But energy is only used to increase production; using finite resources. Thorium is far from emissions free in its production of energy and the co2 already in the atmosphere has locked in about 3 degrees of heating- making agriculture increasingly difficult, especially in the global south.
People seem to forget that we're humans who are adapted to eat food that's grown in a small window of stable climate that is rapidly being left behind.
Kind of Leaves the Isolated American Continent and the NATO Warmongering Alliance in THE DARK Eh!
It was only a couple of years ago many believed that stopping fossil fuels would take us back to the Dark Ages! https://jowaller.substack.com/p/do-conspiracists-really-think-that
Of course, plutonium is used in nuclear weapons, which is why it became the basis of uranium-based reactors as plutonium is the by-product of nuclear power generation., hence this is why thorium was ditched. So once more, war was the driving force.
"Concerning safety aspects, thorium reactors will generate less nuclear waste than their uranium equivalents. The radioactivity of their nuclear waste is also predicted to diminish to safe levels after a few hundred years, whereas nuclear waste produced by current reactors stays radioactive for thousands of years. This reduces the cost of managing the spent fuel and waste.
"More importantly, thorium is a fertile material, but not fissile. Fertile elements do not undergo fission reactions on their own, but upon irradiation in nuclear reactors, they can be converted into fissile material. This implies that thorium reactors can be shut down almost immediately by simply turning off the neutron source."
https://www.scienceabc.com/innovation/why-is-thorium-a-potentially-safer-alternative-to-uranium-not-used-in-nuclear-reactors.html