New load-shedding outage checker..

lexity said:
Having to get a license from the State regulator, to compete, is a red flag that this is not and will not be an open market in energy.

That is the problem.
Click to expand...
so basically they don't want us to have electricity? even if its done privately?
 
purple face said:
so basically they don't want us to have electricity? even if its done privately?
Click to expand...
Yep. Pretty much. They are obsessed with human impact, and not at all focused on human flourishing.

They are Malthusians(*). Meaning they have an obsession with world population size. It's an artifact of a very degraded, short-term view of human beings.

So they do not believe in so-called renewable energy(despite being the world's primary cheerleaders of it) taking the place of coal, gas, and oil. They know it cannot be an adequate substitute.

So it's a ruse that they are undertaking this as an exercise in 'sustaining' 8 billion people. Tellingly, if you look/listen carefully, they never actually say this is their goal. If you listen to the early Eugenicists, they spoke more openly about it.

'Renewable' energy isn't sustainable. If we transition to so-called 'renewables' ('net-zero' hydro-carbons), without at the very least incorporating nuclear and hydro-electric, heavy, rapid population reduction is a certainty. In contrast, such has been the life-sustaining effect of hydro-carbons(not only has it enabled and enhanced human being's prospects of survival but plants and animals, too. Co2 is known as earth's greatest airborne fertilizer).

* Thomas Malthus was one of the individuals who's predictions about the threat that human populations posed , back in the 1800-1900s, turned out to be false. Paul Erlich was another. You can find this hyper-paranoia much earlier, too... as far back as 2nd century AD (look up Tertullian). Back then, the world's population was 190 million. Nearly 2000 years ago, yet the same paranoia was on display by a relatively-tiny few.

Tertullian(circa 190 AD): "What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint) is our teeming population. Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us... In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
lexity said:
'Renewable' energy isn't sustainable.
Click to expand...
Solar is doing well in some places. If our climate remains roughly the same then areas like the Karoo could do very well indeed.

Even energy storage is improving a lot. Liquid sand vats, gravity assisted crane-assembly storage is a newer one, ..

We can move forward in this way, pollution is certainly real. But yes, the current picture being sold is half a lie, will actually take decades. And agreed, the new emergency-urgency is at best a convenient exaggeration. Like Covid was / is.
 
Brian_G said:
Solar is doing well in some places. If our climate remains roughly the same then areas like the Karoo could do very well indeed.

Even energy storage is improving a lot. Liquid sand vats, gravity assisted crane-assembly storage is a newer one, ..

We can move forward in this way, pollution is certainly real. But yes, the current picture being sold is half a lie, will actually take decades. And agreed, the new emergency-urgency is at best a convenient exaggeration. Like Covid was / is.
Click to expand...
Before we can talk about a solution/potential solutions to 'the' problem, we should at the bare minimum define the problem.

Which would involve conducting fundamental analyses.

Most people merely assume that something as rudimentary as a cost-benefit analysis on hydro-carbon energy has been taken into account by the loudest proponents of 'Renewable' energy.

It hasn't.

This is to be expected by those who rely on a strong State for their sustenance. You can see it wherever you find apologists for authoritarian controls. Those who defend lockdowns, for instance. Those who advocate for mandatory jabs, same thing. Climate Change controls are no different. See, if the State is your nanny, you don't have to take responsibility for your decision-making.

This is a very distinct class of human being. Not to say that people don't move in and out of this group, because they do, but it is very easy to spot once pointed out.
 
lexity said:
Before we can talk about a solution/potential solutions to 'the' problem, we should at the bare minimum define the problem.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
But the energy problem will still be there, and now that attention is firmly focused on it it requires inclusion.
Political manipulations here may end up helping us after all; at least they're "committed" now.
 
Brian_G said:
Do you think our tiny biosphere is immune to thoughtless human extremes?
Click to expand...
No, not at all but the real extreme is the cutting of life-sustaining hydro-carbons, without factoring in a cost-benefit analysis.

The earth is not a delicate nurturer, as Alex Epstein says, it's dynamic, dangerous, and deficient:

Insofar as you believe that Earth is a “delicate nurturer,” you believe that human beings are “parasite polluters” whose impact on Earth will inevitably lead to disaster. That’s why catastrophists keep thinking their next catastrophe prediction will be the one that’s right.

The truth is that Earth is not a “delicate nurturer” but “wild potential” (dynamic, deficient, dangerous) and human beings are “producer-improvers” who can impact it for the better. When you recognize this truth you value human impact and expect us overcome problems. - https://energytalkingpoints.com/story/
Click to expand...
 
lexity said:
No, not at all but the real extreme is the cutting of life-sustaining hydro-carbons, without factoring in a cost-benefit analysis.

The earth is not a delicate nurturer, as Alex Epstein says, it's dynamic, dangerous, and deficient:
Click to expand...
You take the gamble if you must, I'll stick to somewhat erring on the side of caution.
 
Last edited:
Brian_G said:
You take the gamble if you must, I'll stick to somewhat erring on the side of caution.
Click to expand...
Switching off the enabling technology for billions of people i.e. cheap, abundant, accessible energy, is not erring on the side of caution.

It's the opposite. It's cavalier, spiteful and smacks of envy and the soft bigotry of low-expectation.

p.s. And if you don't respond, when asked for something as fundamental as a cost-benefit analysis of 'the problem', to justify such drastic, wholesale disruption to human societies, that is simply anti-human if not genocidal.
 
Last edited:
1674111364256.png

Following the current status link currently produces an error response...

1674111430749.png
Note: If there is no work around to this, you can still use manual mode on lexity.co.za. Go to the settings tab, enable 'Manual Mode' and select the stage based on the ESKOM twitter feed.
 
I've always liked hydrocarbons, taken a keen interest in Ethanol in particular for ages.

One size fits all Lex? :unsure:
A bit rich coming from an isolationist, but anyway...
 
Brian_G said:
I've always liked hydrocarbons, taken a keen interest in Ethanol in particular for ages.

One size fits all Lex? :unsure:
Click to expand...
You'll have to explain, I don't follow.

Brian_G said:
A bit rich coming from an isolationist, but anyway...
Click to expand...
Are you referring to me as an isolationist?

If you mean isolating oneself from the morally-economical, then sure I hold both hands up... guilty as charged.

Isolating oneself, per se, though? No, that's not me. I like having lots of interaction with as many different individuals and groups as are willing to reciprocate in a win-win relationship.

I would have thought you of all people would know this by now, Brian_G :)

#freedomofassociation
 
Let's take this in reverse..

lexity said:
Isolating oneself, per se, though? No, that's not me. I like having lots of interaction with as many different individuals and groups as are willing to reciprocate in a win-win relationship.

I would have thought you of all people would know this by now, Brian_G :)

#freedomofassociation
Click to expand...
Until they disagree with your thinking that is. Although you specifically are quite tolerant of the company you keep you won't be sharing a village with them.

lexity said:
You'll have to explain, I don't follow.
Click to expand...
You claim hydrocarbons are the saviour.

Moving on anyway;
Yes their suppression is part of the abuse of the socialistically retarded, but it's much more than that.
Better to put main focus on a technology that is already supported.
Better to make those choices high-profit-based, the bottom line for too many.

Wind energy is a bit of a con at this stage.
Solar panels / mirrors are not, certainly in the south.

And in the meantime, particularly in SA burning coal is not only fine, it's essential.

And while we're at it - nuclear.. not in this country, they can hardly tie their own shoelaces here (if they weren't already stolen).
 
Brian_G said:
lexity said:
Isolating oneself, per se, though? No, that's not me. I like having lots of interaction with as many different individuals and groups as are willing to reciprocate in a win-win relationship.

I would have thought you of all people would know this by now, Brian_G :)

#freedomofassociation
Click to expand...
Until they disagree with your thinking that is. Although you specifically are quite tolerant of the company you keep you won't be sharing a village with them.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the whole idea behind having 194 countries instead of just 1?
 
Brian_G said:
Not quite. You're near the bottom of the page in a heartbeat, I'm first reading it.... ;- )
But let's move on
Click to expand...
Aaaaah... now we're talking. A man who won't simply change his mind without analyzing the new information that has become available.

I like that, Brian_G.

:thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter