Oh boy was that an eye-opener. But of course cavitation, it's a propeller! And they're nice in high to really disperse those particles across a large area.
You don't have to tell us that. Everyone who drives through the countryside notices the huge number of still turbines wherever they see the hillsides made ugly by those monsters.
Thanks for a fascinating talk Alexander. Here in the US we NEVER hear or read reporting on Sweden and her industries. This is the first I've heard of these details and how they fit into recent history. A+
Windfarms are only 28% efficient overall with 40% of their time not working ,then there is only all the fossil fuels backing up how are we ever going to get rid of fossils ? Batteries fo USA backup is calculated at $350 trillion. How can renewables be cheap when you take into account the backup needed as part of the cost.
"Windfarms are only 28% *_efficient_* overall..." Please stop applying the term *_"efficiency"_* or *_"efficient"_* where you mean something else. Are you referring to *_capacity-factor?_* If so, please use that term.
@@aliendroneservices6621 I am talking about load factor compared with capacity DONT you know what I am talking about ? It means you have to build almost for times the turbines to get the overall design output because they are useless and over rated constant ly, as the recent expose on the Isle of Man project. Which is costed at a 75% load factor not 28% in reality.
In the UK, it seems the term "load factor" is favored. In the US, the term "capacity factor" seems to be used, at least with the California ISO folks. So I think those are both referring to the same general thing, that is, how much energy is actually produced over time, divided by the theoretical output of the full rated power for that same period of time. One gotcha with either of those terms is that you can take the inverse of load or capacity factor to come up with a number of how much capacity you "require" to meet your needs. That's typically in the 3X to 4X range for wind and solar. However, if you figure you need 4X the PV nameplate capacity, at night, 4 x 0 is still equal to 0. You still need something to back up that intermittent source, either by massive battery storage or by gas turbine generation. In the end, you need to massively overbuild the wind or solar capacity, and then either have massive storage capacity or fossil fuel generation on hot standby to back up the renewable generation. On top of that, if you have 3X to 4X the capacity available, you'll be curtailing much of that generation on days when the conditions are good. In the UK, producers are paid for curtailed production. That means costs are going to be 3X - 4X higher for that renewable energy because you have 3X to 4X the peak demand capacity installed and you only need 1X of the peak demand.
@@The4Crawler Agreed. BUt isn’t it strange how govmts don’t take these factors into account. Also recent calculations have shown battery backup to renewables would cost $350 trillion dollars , here in uk I estimate £30 trillion .This is never taken into account as part of the cost of renewables. These factors prove that elec bills will be massive if any of this comes to fruition. Which is all impossible anyway.
@@anthonywilson8998 Yes, very strange they always seem to miss that part. Aside from that, there's likely not enough raw materials nor production capacity to produce that sort of volume of battery storage at any price.
I think the current world energy mix won’t change a lot by 2050 or 2060. Outside of China and India, coal use may go down several percentage points but China and India will make up most of that drop to keep overall usage on a slight growth trajectory. Oil and gas will drop overall but by 2050 I don’t think it will drop below 50%, perhaps not even below 60-70%. There will be some gains by wind and solar, but not as big as some folks optimistically predict. Other forms we know of today likely won’t develop much, biomass, hydrogen, etc. Nuclear has the potential to make a lot of headway but only if electrification of almost everything actually takes hold (by political force), the demand for large scale energy supply in double quick time will require it. However, if that is the case, natural gas use will also ramp up quickly in order to cogenerate the power needs. After 2050 is a guessing game at best, 2100 even more so, but I would not be surprised if the saviour energy source of the future has yet to be discovered and it will be world and game changing when it is. Many of us watching this stuff on YT today will be long gone by then and most of the rest will be well past their best before date.
AI can truly solve the energy crisis, but only if it has access to all the facts. It needs a balanced perspective, considering not just the benefits but also the challenges of various energy sources. For instance, solar power has issues like battery storage and mining. Wind energy, too, comes with environmental complications and requires fossil fuels and mining for its infrastructure.
Clearly, the pathway to improved nuclear technology has been stifled for decades and this has resulted in huge resistance - so it is interesting that this person sees nuclear as a negative.
The drug is electricty... all forms of electricty generation have negative impacts. We need to really look at what all the electricty is for and whether that leads us to a better and more natural world or a rise of the machines...
I'm so sorry, I was referring to Schellenberger, but am terrible with names. Also I just saw that Jordan Peterson put out a similar pro-nuclear piece so probably puts him in the controlled opposition camp sadly. 😢
Funnily, fascist is when the private elite team up with the government and smack down any citizen resistance... Sweden is the world's most successful fascist state hidden in plain sight...
@@GGTutor1 I doubt he meant anything more specific than evil authoritarians when he said it. I would suggest corporatism or managerialism are better words for what we have now. Managerialism incorporates Fascism, National Socialism and Communism (bygone regimes which used hard power) as well as our representative Democracies (they use soft power). They all use a managerial class to guide the modern mass society and kill off the old bourgeoisie institutions. Using the term of the old enemy of our current regime to denotate baddies is playing into their narrative.
Alexander, ask yourself, 'who remains from your attack?' A republic form of government is based upon voting, i.e., consensus. But voters vote for their own interests, not for better governance. For example, a poor voter votes for higher minimum wage, generally, even though it will reduce employment overall. So the populations are corrupt themselves, by your altruistic presumption. Your problem is assuming that the ethical foundation of self-sacrifice is rational. But it is not, it is irrational. It's the reason we see children sacrificing themselves for the environment, or teachers for the collective, or politicians claiming to act in the public interest--they are all indoctrinated with the dubious ethics of self-sacrifice. A rational ethical code would be self-reliance and productivity, trading value in free, consenting exchange for the value with which to justly serve your own and family's interest, without violating the individual rights of others. But that is not the prevailing ethical paradigm. Animals have enough sense to know that they should defend their own interests. Only humans have been conned out of the realization and acknowledgement of that obvious inductive concept. Your rant is based upon a false paradigm. All those companies are supposed to make money for their managers, investors, and employees, building products and providing services that provide value to their consumers and clients. Your ludicrous view that McDonald's produces poison is baseless. You could as legitimately claim that everyone should stop drinking water because so many people drown every year.
The view that McDonald's produces poison is a fact. Just because a poison doesn't kill you in 20 minutes doesn't mean it won't in 20 years. Look at the amount of people in their forties with type 2 diabetes and who are obese. Look at the number of people in their fifties with heart disease and hyper-tension. Those in their sixties with dementia. Diet plays an enormous role in our health.
A very good question. I live in Jämtland which has been occupied by for 500 years. Before it was conquered, it was an anarchists state. Funnily, Nature is also anarchists, as in there are laws and things generally get on with things but there is no central control or government. Maybe the answer lies within personal empowerment, decentralized, moral and ethically robust smaller distributed communities rather than large urban sprawl and centralized control?
@@rewakenwithalexander870 , well, wiki says "Jämtland was originally an autonomous republic". Many anarchists today presume that liberty is anarchy, when it is not. What about the rights of the accused? They have not consented to any legal standard, as that would be a government, therefore any attempt to curtail their actions would be essentially an act of war. Who establishes property rights? The better organized and equipped military, unless they are snuck up on. Anarchy itself is a continuous state of war. By promoting anarchy, Marxists deter people from organizing to understand and improve their governance. Anarchy is the endgame of pseudoscience Marxism. Liberty has largely been removed from the educational system and replaced by anarchy by the leftists. A better understanding of the nature of political institutions is explained with "to secure these Rights, _Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed_ , that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness". By turning politics into nihilistic anarchy, history has been lost and modern people are as politically ignorant as before the ancient Greeks.
@@rewakenwithalexander870 , I do. Why would any theory of better governance evolve amongst a group of anarchists who oppose government in general? Hypocrites at best. The result is wide-spread nihilism in the field of political science. Anarcho-capitalist theory itself is full of holes and non-scientific.
Alexander is not only a great thinker he is also a very humble and genuine man.
He is a dear friend
I'm learning much from this interview - excellent analysis of things like toxicity of windmills as an example.
Oh boy was that an eye-opener.
But of course cavitation, it's a propeller! And they're nice in high to really disperse those particles across a large area.
Thanks guys. On wind turbines, interesting the UK have just started reporting fibre glass in shellfish, after all the time it's been in use.
Excellent as usual thanks Alexander, thanks Tom.
Fascinating exposition. The operative term in “artificial intelligence “ is ARTIFICIAL.
The “Big Green Fascist Machine” … Genius.
You don't have to tell us that. Everyone who drives through the countryside notices the huge number of still turbines wherever they see the hillsides made ugly by those monsters.
Thanks for a fascinating talk Alexander. Here in the US we NEVER hear or read reporting on Sweden and her industries. This is the first I've heard of these details and how they fit into recent history. A+
Wow, that was an absolute banger!
With real meat not the vegan type too
Thanks!
The global supergroup Greta and the Extinctionettes have changed their name to Greta and the Palestinose. All her adorable fans in tow.
AI is easily programmed to suit any narrative you want.
Windfarms are only 28% efficient overall with 40% of their time not working ,then there is only all the fossil fuels backing up how are we ever going to get rid of fossils ? Batteries fo USA backup is calculated at $350 trillion. How can renewables be cheap when you take into account the backup needed as part of the cost.
"Windfarms are only 28% *_efficient_* overall..."
Please stop applying the term *_"efficiency"_* or *_"efficient"_* where you mean something else. Are you referring to *_capacity-factor?_* If so, please use that term.
@@aliendroneservices6621 I am talking about load factor compared with capacity DONT you know what I am talking about ? It means you have to build almost for times the turbines to get the overall design output because they are useless and over rated constant ly, as the recent expose on the Isle of Man project. Which is costed at a 75% load factor not 28% in reality.
In the UK, it seems the term "load factor" is favored. In the US, the term "capacity factor" seems to be used, at least with the California ISO folks. So I think those are both referring to the same general thing, that is, how much energy is actually produced over time, divided by the theoretical output of the full rated power for that same period of time.
One gotcha with either of those terms is that you can take the inverse of load or capacity factor to come up with a number of how much capacity you "require" to meet your needs. That's typically in the 3X to 4X range for wind and solar. However, if you figure you need 4X the PV nameplate capacity, at night, 4 x 0 is still equal to 0. You still need something to back up that intermittent source, either by massive battery storage or by gas turbine generation.
In the end, you need to massively overbuild the wind or solar capacity, and then either have massive storage capacity or fossil fuel generation on hot standby to back up the renewable generation. On top of that, if you have 3X to 4X the capacity available, you'll be curtailing much of that generation on days when the conditions are good. In the UK, producers are paid for curtailed production. That means costs are going to be 3X - 4X higher for that renewable energy because you have 3X to 4X the peak demand capacity installed and you only need 1X of the peak demand.
@@The4Crawler Agreed. BUt isn’t it strange how govmts don’t take these factors into account. Also recent calculations have shown battery backup to renewables would cost $350 trillion dollars , here in uk I estimate £30 trillion .This is never taken into account as part of the cost of renewables. These factors prove that elec bills will be massive if any of this comes to fruition. Which is all impossible anyway.
@@anthonywilson8998 Yes, very strange they always seem to miss that part. Aside from that, there's likely not enough raw materials nor production capacity to produce that sort of volume of battery storage at any price.
I always say to people that Sweden is Sauraman and the Orcs in LotR, I could never explain this as succinctly as mister Pohl does.
Thanks. I knew I wasn't the first to come to this conclusion. Appreciate the feedback, but I need to work on my "you know's!
I think the current world energy mix won’t change a lot by 2050 or 2060. Outside of China and India, coal use may go down several percentage points but China and India will make up most of that drop to keep overall usage on a slight growth trajectory. Oil and gas will drop overall but by 2050 I don’t think it will drop below 50%, perhaps not even below 60-70%. There will be some gains by wind and solar, but not as big as some folks optimistically predict. Other forms we know of today likely won’t develop much, biomass, hydrogen, etc. Nuclear has the potential to make a lot of headway but only if electrification of almost everything actually takes hold (by political force), the demand for large scale energy supply in double quick time will require it. However, if that is the case, natural gas use will also ramp up quickly in order to cogenerate the power needs. After 2050 is a guessing game at best, 2100 even more so, but I would not be surprised if the saviour energy source of the future has yet to be discovered and it will be world and game changing when it is. Many of us watching this stuff on YT today will be long gone by then and most of the rest will be well past their best before date.
AI can truly solve the energy crisis, but only if it has access to all the facts. It needs a balanced perspective, considering not just the benefits but also the challenges of various energy sources. For instance, solar power has issues like battery storage and mining. Wind energy, too, comes with environmental complications and requires fossil fuels and mining for its infrastructure.
Northvolt is building a factory in Quebec Canada that will get a 2 billion grant from the government. A terrible waste imo.
Clearly, the pathway to improved nuclear technology has been stifled for decades and this has resulted in huge resistance - so it is interesting that this person sees nuclear as a negative.
The drug is electricty... all forms of electricty generation have negative impacts. We need to really look at what all the electricty is for and whether that leads us to a better and more natural world or a rise of the machines...
2:12 2:16 Who? Is he referring to Michael *_Shellenberger?_*
I'm so sorry, I was referring to Schellenberger, but am terrible with names. Also I just saw that Jordan Peterson put out a similar pro-nuclear piece so probably puts him in the controlled opposition camp sadly. 😢
who says killing whales and eagles isn't green?
Ive been vegan for more than 20 years. For the animals of course. If I get dementia because of it then so be it. Not causing animals pain is worth it.
Oh god, contrails... .Any solutions to anything? An oddball.
Yeah, but the best kind. Dude was spitting mad facts.
Why call everything you don't like fascist? I bet the fascists would be much nicer people than the ones in the green industrial complex.
Funnily, fascist is when the private elite team up with the government and smack down any citizen resistance... Sweden is the world's most successful fascist state hidden in plain sight...
Fascism is when corporate and the state are indistinguishable, which is what we now have.
@@GGTutor1 I doubt he meant anything more specific than evil authoritarians when he said it. I would suggest corporatism or managerialism are better words for what we have now. Managerialism incorporates Fascism, National Socialism and Communism (bygone regimes which used hard power) as well as our representative Democracies (they use soft power).
They all use a managerial class to guide the modern mass society and kill off the old bourgeoisie institutions. Using the term of the old enemy of our current regime to denotate baddies is playing into their narrative.
Sweden "probably destroyed music with Abba". I sympathise so much with that idea.
Alexander, ask yourself, 'who remains from your attack?' A republic form of government is based upon voting, i.e., consensus. But voters vote for their own interests, not for better governance. For example, a poor voter votes for higher minimum wage, generally, even though it will reduce employment overall.
So the populations are corrupt themselves, by your altruistic presumption.
Your problem is assuming that the ethical foundation of self-sacrifice is rational. But it is not, it is irrational. It's the reason we see children sacrificing themselves for the environment, or teachers for the collective, or politicians claiming to act in the public interest--they are all indoctrinated with the dubious ethics of self-sacrifice.
A rational ethical code would be self-reliance and productivity, trading value in free, consenting exchange for the value with which to justly serve your own and family's interest, without violating the individual rights of others. But that is not the prevailing ethical paradigm.
Animals have enough sense to know that they should defend their own interests. Only humans have been conned out of the realization and acknowledgement of that obvious inductive concept.
Your rant is based upon a false paradigm. All those companies are supposed to make money for their managers, investors, and employees, building products and providing services that provide value to their consumers and clients. Your ludicrous view that McDonald's produces poison is baseless. You could as legitimately claim that everyone should stop drinking water because so many people drown every year.
The view that McDonald's produces poison is a fact. Just because a poison doesn't kill you in 20 minutes doesn't mean it won't in 20 years. Look at the amount of people in their forties with type 2 diabetes and who are obese. Look at the number of people in their fifties with heart disease and hyper-tension. Those in their sixties with dementia. Diet plays an enormous role in our health.
A very good question. I live in Jämtland which has been occupied by for 500 years. Before it was conquered, it was an anarchists state. Funnily, Nature is also anarchists, as in there are laws and things generally get on with things but there is no central control or government. Maybe the answer lies within personal empowerment, decentralized, moral and ethically robust smaller distributed communities rather than large urban sprawl and centralized control?
@@rewakenwithalexander870 , well, wiki says "Jämtland was originally an autonomous republic".
Many anarchists today presume that liberty is anarchy, when it is not. What about the rights of the accused? They have not consented to any legal standard, as that would be a government, therefore any attempt to curtail their actions would be essentially an act of war. Who establishes property rights? The better organized and equipped military, unless they are snuck up on.
Anarchy itself is a continuous state of war. By promoting anarchy, Marxists deter people from organizing to understand and improve their governance. Anarchy is the endgame of pseudoscience Marxism. Liberty has largely been removed from the educational system and replaced by anarchy by the leftists.
A better understanding of the nature of political institutions is explained with "to secure these Rights, _Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed_ , that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness".
By turning politics into nihilistic anarchy, history has been lost and modern people are as politically ignorant as before the ancient Greeks.
@@WorldfreeFreemark who says anarchism can only be nihilistic?
@@rewakenwithalexander870 , I do. Why would any theory of better governance evolve amongst a group of anarchists who oppose government in general? Hypocrites at best. The result is wide-spread nihilism in the field of political science. Anarcho-capitalist theory itself is full of holes and non-scientific.
@AlexanderPohl All documentaries are propaganda. Every documentary is crafted to envelope the filosophy of the narrator.
Arrogance apparently has unlimited bandwidth.
The guy is very erudite but on a bit of a loon