Green God Is Pissed

I called the God of Physics this weekend, he told me that there is still no such thing as renewable energy.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed

Gaia was pissed so Zhe demanded proof.

This sounds like something we should try to understand. How would you ‘renew’ something that cannot be destroyed? What would make something that already exists ‘new’?

The phrase ‘renewable energy’ is in fact, completely fake. It is only a marketing scheme to help the green Marxist worshipers feel like they are recycling something. Renew, like eternal life in real religion. Become clean, free and friendly. Recycle, reclaim, leave no trace. Unlike the evil fossil fuel burning neanderthals bent on destroying the planet – for their comfort.

Because renewable energy has no possible correct definition per the terms the God of Physics gave us when we accepted our births in this universe, it is completely flexible to whatever context you wish to give it. I personally believe renewable energy means ‘cake’. I like cake so I’ve decided that is what it means. Prove me wrong.

Seriously, shouldn’t we choose our energy sources based on real factors rather than marketing schemes? Things like cost, cleanliness, density, weight, availability etc…. All things the God of Physics approves of and Gaia, the fake green Marxist god, does not.

That is the problem, the Marxist government worshipers are also worshipers of the false green god. Gaia demands fealty in the form of coldness, lack of food, lack of transportation, lack of freedom to create, lack of freedom to use the things we need. Very similar needs to the Marxist government god I might add.

Energy sources for dummies (Don ‘t beat me up for leaving your favorite one out.):

  • Fossil fuels coal, gasoline, natural gas, others..
    • Negatives
      • Predicted warming from co2
      • Predicted climate change
      • particulates
    • Positives
      • High energy density
      • Minimal warming detected
      • No climate change of any kind detected
      • High energy density
      • Portable
      • Low cost
      • Widely available
      • Low environmental impact in extraction and use
      • Particulates widely mitigated
      • Reliably available
      • Emits plant food causing significant greening
  • Wood
    • Negatives
      • Particulate emissions
      • Low density
      • Smell?
    • Positives
      • Widely available
      • Biofuel with short carbon cycle so no climate potential
      • Heavy
      • Medium density
      • Cheap
      • Reliable
  • Solar
    • Negatives
      • Very low energy density requiring huge land coverage
      • Expensive
      • Production and recycling are highly damaging to environment
      • Environmentally damaging due to land usage
      • Intermittent source
    • Positives
      • Costs improving
      • Can be used in remote locations
      • Small applications where power is not available make sense
  • Wind
    • Negatives
      • Very low energy density requiring huge land coverage
      • Expensive
      • Production and recycling are highly damaging to environment
      • Environmentally damaging due to land usage
      • Intermittent source
    • Positives
      • Can be used in remote locations
      • Small applications where power is not available make sense
  • Bio-algae
    • Negatives
      • Ultra low energy density requiring huge land coverage – completely impractical
      • Expensive
      • Environmentally damaging due to land usage
    • Positives
      • High storage density
      • Sounds green
  • Nuclear Fission
    • Negatives
      • Large reactor size
      • Old technologies were dangerous
      • Need plan for minimal amounts of waste storage
    • Positives
      • High energy density
      • Reliable
      • Safe
      • No significant emissions
      • Minimal production footprint
  • Nuclear Fusion
    • Negatives
      • Not invented
      • Large size
    • Positives
      • High energy density
      • Reliable
      • Safe
      • No significant emissions
      • Minimal production footprint

So what got me going on this was this morning where the radio ran an add for geothermal power using home water. The great thing about ground water in many places is that in the summer it is a nice cool source to reduce temperatures in your home. In the winter it is much warmer than outdoors allowing efficient heating. We have a lot of water in Michigan so it is actually a good idea for efficiency. What really got me mad was they claimed it was….

Renewable Energy

19 thoughts on “Green God Is Pissed”

    1. It’s worse even than that. The small CO2 increase has been measured to cause significant plant growth. This happens because we are near the starvation limit for plants.

      Reply

    2. Seriously, shouldn’t we choose our energy sources based on real factors rather than marketing schemes? Things like cost, cleanliness, density, weight, availability etc…. All things the God of Physics approves of and Gaia, the fake green Marxist god, does not.

      “What do you mean, ‘WE’, Kemo Sabe? ”

      You want a ( another? ) very long (personal, my lifetime) history lesson on US energy choices? Who was choosing what, upon what basis, from about 1968 forward?

      I’d promise to discuss — well, mention — Geothermal proposals.

      Reply

        1. Noodling around on this, still.

          As a taste, consider how Hollywood director Zack Synder treated the character “Batman” in recent movies (versus the TV version with Adam West in the mid-1960s) and imagine how Synder might have made a classic 60s style “Pillow Talk” or “Move Over, Darling” style Doris Day movie. Grittier, Darker, morally ambiguous…

          Not by Snyder, but that movie exists. Came out in 1968, fittingly, the year of assassinations and riots and the Democratic National Convention followed by the George Wallace Independent bid for the White House (hard to rank those four in terms of long-term destructiveness). A year so bad even Lyndon Johnson washed his hands of it.

          Cast your mind back to a zeit-geist in which Richard Nixon seemed like a good, steady, “return to normal” figure. An ex-Congress Critter, ex-Senator, ex-VP, willing to negotiate with our adversaries, make deals, reach across the aisle, embrace “the science” and DO SOMETHING about the big problems of the day.

          Nixon.

          Nixon?

          Familiar story, right?

          “We” have to be careful about what, and who, “we” wish for.

          Reply

          1. The Batman/Doris Day/Nixon historical comparison was, of course, me.

            The auto-fill in THIS browser didn’t pick up handles like THAT browser pre-loads for me.

            Sorry. Not trying to hide.

  2. Interesting to note that despite trillions spent and wars fought (to a large degree, at least) to keep oil flowing, the mention of those factors as negatives is curiously missing. As of course, is empowering the brutal autocrats who enrich themselves from marketing oil, largely at the expense of their populations. As is, of course, environmental impact at all levels from any form of fossil fuels.

    Of course, any of those negatives (as well as positive externalities) need to be considered in the full context of the RELATIVE positive and negative externalities from other energy sources.

    But it’s hilarious that those issues completely escape your attention.

    I can’t imagine why.

    Reply

        1. You have that backwards, the fantasy is that there aren’t environmental (not to mention geopolitical or extraction) costs no matter the energy source.

          Oh, and please don’t forget to (1) not read what the trolls post and (2) ignore the trolls; reading and responding will only encourage them, and then the resident snowflakes you can’t deal with opposing viewpoints will freak out.

          Reply

          2. Logic fail (as usual) .

            Autocrats who brutalize snd oppress large %’s of their populations obtain power and ability to brutalize and oppress large populations when they market commodities that make them impossibly wealthy.

            When we spend trillions in wars, to keep their businesses afloat so we can utilize those commodities (and not to mention sell them weapons they use carry out their brutality, weapons which often are predictably used later to kill Americans), we are morally complicit in the brutality.

            Regardless, you’re just fucking that the trillions of dollars we spend to keep oil floating is a cost you ignored.

            Not that it wouldn’t be entirely predictable that you’d fuck that cost in your facile analysis.

      2. I know you don’t give a shit about political dissidents in the ME, but it’s self parody that you ignore the true costs to keep oil flowing, and list environmental cost from something like solar but ignore it for something like coal.

        Reply

        1. And whatever you do, make sure to ignore Jared’s deals with murderous regime in SA.

          If you did pay attention, then someone might think your hysterical ranting about Biden’s corruption was something more than partisan political expediency.

          Reply

Leave a comment