Doomberg assumes the good faith of the politicians, an assumption that emerges from all his analyses. The reality is that the politicians do not want to maintain the standard of living of the citizens, and their goal is not more energy with less pollution, their goal is only less energy!!! So a reduced standard of living!!! The low standard of living makes people dependent. Dependent people are easy to control. That's the goal, not the pollution, the climate, etc.
Nuclear power is too costly but with the generous help of the taxpayer it is used to deliver untold profits to shareholders. Those advocating nuclear power should move to Fukushima where the price of real estate is rock bottom and the sea is warm all year. Just watch out for the fish with two heads that glow in the dark.
The two US political parties SAY they both are in favor of nuclear. Yet they seem to be dragging their as____ on this issue and I don't know why; other than they seem rather two-faced about their agenda. A seasoned well known investor and speculator said something to the effect of" if nuclear doesn't go on line soon ; the lights won't either". Well ; that was said about five months ago and there're currently rolling blackouts in the state of California.
CO2 nonproliferation, yes. Nuclear proliferation, yes. EV proliferation, yes National grid capacity 5 times bigger? Daily drive 7wkh EV battery 100kwh Daily top-up ezi pezi. Just 7wkh. Daily spare 93kwh to be a wasted resource? Every day. 300million rooftops in USA. 300million vehicles in USA. 300million rooftop solar PV possible. 6.6kw 300million buildings connected to existing national grid. Can anyone do the maths?????
Math is great when they are all there. Start by filling the physics gaps, control theory and finally the math around Operations Research. Plug these holes and the get back to us.
I'm very pro nuclear power and always have been, but could SMRs increase risk due to the fact that there must be many SMRs vs few large nuclear reactors? Nuclear reactors are an inherent security risk because of terrorism, etc. Just a thought. All the best everyone.
@@amraceway Nonsense. You've been listening to the Green propaganda too much, which was funded by Russia to get Germany to shut down their nuclear reactors and be dependent on Russian gas and let Russia take over Eastern Europe again. Japan is restarting all of its reactors that aren't too old and are planning more brand new ones. How many millions of people were killed at Fukushima? Oh, I remember now, there were zero deaths. Like I just said NONSENSE, unless you live in Moscow. Slava Ukraine. 🇺🇦🇬🇧
The ENTIRE net zero aspiration and direction is based upon the fallacies that carbon dioxide is a) a pollutant, when it is in fact an essential gas - reducing it by 60% of todays levels would kill off plant life and all things which depend on it, b) they conveniently neglect to acknowledge that all carbon dioxide present constitutes a mere 0.04% of the planet’s atmosphere , and moreover that the man-made component is around 0.004%, ie four one-thousandths of one per cent; to imagine that this can drive ‘global warming’ is delusional, as well as wrong, temperature drives co2 levels, and not the other way around, and c) ice core samples demonstrate clearly that the planet’s average temperature (another topic that makes no sense) has been higher many times before throughout history, ie BEFORE the ‘dmaging’ industrial era, and that global temperatures vary as part of a result of entirely natural cycles. People are being led up the garden path by fool politicians with a combination of misunderstood concepts and often malice to drive an industry which both impoverishes and enslaves them - entirely without justification. What are these chumps going to say when the much dreaded and widely predicted global warming turns out to be global cooling? ruclips.net/video/XJOazhVmf9w/видео.html
@@ivancho5854 see Lars Schernikau’s detailed analysis of the current ‘Net Zero’ drive by vested interests, also on Tom Nelson Podcast channel, as well as another recent video examining the question of nuclear energy production, which we have largely steered clear of, despite its enormous potential to deliver abundant base load.
what the fook is the point, purpose, usage and cost factor of a new or legacy NPP/materials/waste-smegma, if it incinerates under excessive heat - as happened on London suburb houses last summer? None of the pro Nuke - and anti Nuke - folk seem to have woken up to this 1 iota.
Why is motley fool putting anonymous guests on? I'd like to have some basic disclosure on who funds this project. Motley Fool has lost nearly all credibility from where it once began.
Doomberg's rationale for anonimity is to force people to address the issues they discuss and not simply attack the person(s) - which is quite smart in the antisocial media world. For funding - look at their substack stats and you'll see its funded by subscriptions - this was discussed in a post called "the work of our lives" as they moved to a subscription service.
“There are no solutions, only trade-offs” - Thomas Sowell
Love this guest, the quote he uses is Thomas Sowel
Sorry, which quote? Heard the full interview, but missed that detail.
@@nkristianschmidt "There are no solutions, only trade-offs"
@@TheHeavyModd Right, thanks.
Doomberg quoted Dr. Thomas Sowell - "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs." Paraphrased
I like that; "Malthusian Environmentalists" ......well said !
Doomberg assumes the good faith of the politicians, an assumption that emerges from all his analyses. The reality is that the politicians do not want to maintain the standard of living of the citizens, and their goal is not more energy with less pollution, their goal is only less energy!!! So a reduced standard of living!!! The low standard of living makes people dependent. Dependent people are easy to control. That's the goal, not the pollution, the climate, etc.
100% spot on!
@@greeceundiscovered9670 100% wrong. western politicians are there to support monopoly corporations.
Weather put a crimp in Doomberg's predictions (which were wrong) for Europe this winter. Shows how hard it is to forecast the future for energy usage.
The Future is Uncertain !
But it also shows that it is harder to forecast weather-based energy generation!
@@factnotfiction5915g to waw wr wwwéXzzzz
Nuclear power is too costly but with the generous help of the taxpayer it is used to deliver untold profits to shareholders. Those advocating nuclear power should move to Fukushima where the price of real estate is rock bottom and the sea is warm all year. Just watch out for the fish with two heads that glow in the dark.
Provocative (not).
OK boomer
@@kowalityjesus Well Jesus what miracles have you performed lately?
@@amraceway Nuclear energy is the way the truth and the light. Go and sin no more. ; )
A master of his trade!
The two US political parties SAY they both are in favor of nuclear. Yet they seem to be dragging their as____ on this issue and I don't know why; other than they seem rather two-faced about their agenda. A seasoned well known investor and speculator said something to the effect of" if nuclear doesn't go on line soon ; the lights won't either". Well ; that was said about five months ago and there're currently rolling blackouts in the state of California.
Rolls Royce scalable SMR modules are looking awesome
Instead of bowing up coal power stations why not put a SNR to generate steam to power the existing turbines? The cost savings would be enormous.
CO2 nonproliferation, yes.
Nuclear proliferation, yes.
EV proliferation, yes
National grid capacity 5 times bigger?
Daily drive 7wkh
EV battery 100kwh
Daily top-up ezi pezi. Just 7wkh.
Daily spare 93kwh to be a wasted resource? Every day.
300million rooftops in USA.
300million vehicles in USA.
300million rooftop solar PV possible. 6.6kw
300million buildings connected to existing national grid.
Can anyone do the maths?????
Math is great when they are all there. Start by filling the physics gaps, control theory and finally the math around Operations Research. Plug these holes and the get back to us.
I'm very pro nuclear power and always have been, but could SMRs increase risk due to the fact that there must be many SMRs vs few large nuclear reactors? Nuclear reactors are an inherent security risk because of terrorism, etc. Just a thought.
All the best everyone.
Especially those fine folk that live in Fukushima.
@@amraceway Nonsense. You've been listening to the Green propaganda too much, which was funded by Russia to get Germany to shut down their nuclear reactors and be dependent on Russian gas and let Russia take over Eastern Europe again.
Japan is restarting all of its reactors that aren't too old and are planning more brand new ones. How many millions of people were killed at Fukushima? Oh, I remember now, there were zero deaths. Like I just said NONSENSE, unless you live in Moscow.
Slava Ukraine. 🇺🇦🇬🇧
Fair point.
AFCENERGY PLC ANYONE!!
Thomas Sowell
The ENTIRE net zero aspiration and direction is based upon the fallacies that carbon dioxide is a) a pollutant, when it is in fact an essential gas - reducing it by 60% of todays levels would kill off plant life and all things which depend on it, b) they conveniently neglect to acknowledge that all carbon dioxide present constitutes a mere 0.04% of the planet’s atmosphere , and moreover that the man-made component is around 0.004%, ie four one-thousandths of one per cent; to imagine that this can drive ‘global warming’ is delusional, as well as wrong, temperature drives co2 levels, and not the other way around, and c) ice core samples demonstrate clearly that the planet’s average temperature (another topic that makes no sense) has been higher many times before throughout history, ie BEFORE the ‘dmaging’ industrial era, and that global temperatures vary as part of a result of entirely natural cycles. People are being led up the garden path by fool politicians with a combination of misunderstood concepts and often malice to drive an industry which both impoverishes and enslaves them - entirely without justification. What are these chumps going to say when the much dreaded and widely predicted global warming turns out to be global cooling?
ruclips.net/video/XJOazhVmf9w/видео.html
Thanks for the link.
@@ivancho5854 see Lars Schernikau’s detailed analysis of the current ‘Net Zero’ drive by vested interests, also on Tom Nelson Podcast channel, as well as another recent video examining the question of nuclear energy production, which we have largely steered clear of, despite its enormous potential to deliver abundant base load.
@@ivancho5854 ruclips.net/video/1slEiLELkJI/видео.html
@@ivancho5854 ruclips.net/video/NiHrCjqP4KQ/видео.html
Neurotransmitters compose 0.000003% of a person's chemical composition yet without them the body wouldn't function
what the fook is the point, purpose, usage and cost factor of a new or legacy NPP/materials/waste-smegma, if it incinerates under excessive heat - as happened on London suburb houses last summer? None of the pro Nuke - and anti Nuke - folk seem to have woken up to this 1 iota.
If you go back to basics , CO2 has got almost nothing to do with global warming
CO2 is plant food.
Horse and cart thinking is crap.
Nuclear energy is very expensive unless small moduler technology come to market soon. Solar, wind and batteries are the future.
Why is motley fool putting anonymous guests on? I'd like to have some basic disclosure on who funds this project. Motley Fool has lost nearly all credibility from where it once began.
Doomberg's rationale for anonimity is to force people to address the issues they discuss and not simply attack the person(s) - which is quite smart in the antisocial media world. For funding - look at their substack stats and you'll see its funded by subscriptions - this was discussed in a post called "the work of our lives" as they moved to a subscription service.
Doomberg's anonymity in no way affects his credibility... Are you aware of his popularity in the finance world? His message is what is important.
Paul Zahniser, If you need a pedigree to validate good information, you’re doing it wrong.
@@brawndothethirstmutilator9848 well said. observe and analyze the data and arguments. not who is necessarily saying it.
Doom berg is more credible than 99% of dipsticks out there.
When it comes to energy, he/they are at the top of the game.
Thomas Sowell