#energy #economy #CO2 #nuclear

What Is Wrong With the Future of Energy

– Swindling with the future of energy –

I find it difficult to accept that in our modern technological society, we promote the use of old and outdated technologies such as solar cells and wind driven dynamo’s. These sources of energy are inferior to what we are currently capable of. Oddly enough, during what is perceived a crisis, the climate lobby has turned the tables on technology, which is now following the lead of swindlers. Nature and the working man, as always, are the victim of a large scale scam. Unwittingly, the modern consumer is being manipulated to pay more for his energy, thinking that nature is will be lost if he doesn’t. Meanwhile, the nature that really needs protection is being destroyed out of view and the tools we have to save her are pushed away.

– Renewables, not so renewable –

Renewable energy is sold as a blessing: infinite sources of energy that do not harm nature. But, this is far from reality. Renewable energy sources are the worst choice for man and nature from the contemporary options we can choose from. In 50 years time we will be left wondering how we could be so stupid to believe in green energy.

bird mortality around wind turbines

Carbon dioxide, so they say, is a dangerous gas that is heating up our climate. We humans are burning more fuel than nature can grow, regenerating the carbon dioxide that was once part of the atmosphere, releasing it back too quickly. Meanwhile, we are cutting the forests at record speeds - which is the real driving force behind most of the global warming. Through media and politics, we are forced to utilize alternative energy sources with a low carbon footprint. To reduce carbon emissions, the worst of the worst of options is brought forward. Not a new modern technology that will solve this problem once and for all, but one that is never going to solve the problem at all. And that is beyond sketchy. If I’ve ever seen a scam, this is one.

Currently, only 2% of world energy production is renewable, if you don’t count the hydropower that was already in place. Building more hydropower stations is very destructive. 2% Is way too little for any impact on global carbon dioxide levels, even after our vast amounts of spending, because they create far too little energy. While good for oil-companies, who love the failing competition, this is a monumental loss of investment - right now when time is so crucial for nature. This is why energy prices are increasing rapidly. Compared to coal or nuclear power, solar cells and wind energy cost way to much for what they produce. Total energy production is rising way too fast now, this false industry can never make a dent in global carbon dioxide production. Energy lobbies, knowing this, promote renewables with their own interests in mind.

– The future of energy –

What earth really needs is energy sources that can power the future. Safe, reliable sources that create vast amounts of energy. While the technologies of electronics, biochemistry and artificial intelligence have progressed like crazy, speeding ahead, electricity production somehow has been left cold. We are still burning coal and using water, wind and sunpower like we are living hundreds of years ago. The future has been retarded. Think of what we could do the next 50 years, if we had a new revolution in energy-production.

Where in this universe, if we are searching for it, do we find the most locked up energy? Ask anyone fysisist and he will reply: inside the atom. Splitting or combining atoms can create beyond imaginable amounts of energy. Up until now, we have been harvesting energy from the cosmos with chemistry, burning a fuel with oxygen in the air. This generates small amounts of very dirty energy. For any future loving technology enthusiast, a form of nuclear energy is the only way forward.

The track record of nuclear power has been smudged. We have seen a very effective war on nuclear energy without any real basis, Neither chernobyl or any other nuclear catastrophe was close to the deadliness of wind turbines or coal power plants if we crunch the data. And that is if we use Uranium. There are already much better technologies utilizing the power of the atom, locked away from us, because they would undermine the energy-industry almost immediately.

Don’t believe me?


Or more in depth and worth every second:


Nuclear energy produces no carbon dioxide, and should have been the first alternative investigated, if battling climate change was an honest endeavor. It’s a hype that Nuclear power is dangerous and inferior, again, protecting a certain powerful lobby. If Nuclear power is so dangerous, why don’t we spend a lot of time and money on making it safer and better? Or, how about we actually start using a revolutionary amazing form of nuclear power that was invented before the Uranium reactors we use now? Why is humanity making such foolish choices when it comes to energy production?