The planet is dying faster than we thought

[write4u]

Those who think that using fossil fuels for energy will create a catastrophic future and we need to stop using them ASAP are seriously misguided. The geological and geochemical evidence falsifies that conclusion. CO2 in the past has been more than double what it now is and the biosphere thrived...even as the pH of the oceans was about one unit less alkaline. The carbonate plankton diversified. Temperatures were warmer but not "catastrophic". No "acidification" took place.

It's not the CO2 that will do the damage, it is AGW from CO2 that will be responsible for multiple cascading effects.

The Human Cost of Anthropogenic Global Warming: Semi-Quantitative Prediction and the 1,000-Tonne Rule

Greenhouse-gas emissions are indirectly causing future deaths by multiple mechanisms. For example, reduced food and water supplies will exacerbate hunger, disease, violence, and migration. How will anthropogenic global warming (AGW) affect global mortality due to poverty around and beyond 2100?

Roughly, how much burned fossil carbon corresponds to one future death? What are the psychological, medical, political, and economic implications? Predicted death tolls are crucial for policy formulation, but uncertainty increases with temporal distance from the present and estimates may be biased. Order-of-magnitude estimates should refer to literature from diverse relevant disciplines.

The carbon budget for 2°C AGW (roughly 10^12 tonnes carbon) will indirectly cause roughly 10^9 future premature deaths (10% of projected maximum global population), spread over one to two centuries. This zeroth-order prediction is relative and in addition to existing preventable death rates. It lies between likely best- and worst-case scenarios of roughly 3 × 10^8 and 3 × 10^9, corresponding to plus/minus one standard deviation on a logarithmic scale in a Gaussian probability distribution.

It implies that one future premature death is caused every time roughly 1,000 (300–3,000) tonnes of carbon are burned. Therefore, any fossil-fuel project that burns millions of tons of carbon is probably indirectly killing thousands of future people. The prediction may be considered valid, accounting for multiple indirect links between AGW and death rates in a top-down approach, but unreliable due to the uncertainty of climate change feedback and interactions between physical, biological, social, and political climate impacts (e.g., ecological cascade effects and co-extinction).

Given universal agreement on the value of human lives, a death toll of this unprecedented magnitude must be avoided at all costs. As a clear political message, the “1,000-tonne rule” can be used to defend human rights, especially in developing countries, and to clarify that climate change is primarily a human rights issue.

more.......

Frontiers | The Human Cost of Anthropogenic Global Warming: Semi-Quantitative Prediction and the 1,000-Tonne Rule

Greenhouse-gas emissions are indirectly causing future deaths by multiple mechanisms. For example, reduced food and water supplies will exacerbate hunger, di...

www.frontiersin.org

 

[Broadlands]

It's not the CO2 that will do the damage, it is AGW from CO2 that will be responsible for multiple cascading effects.

So far the total amount of "global" warming from a 50% increase in CO2 (some of which is natural) is still less than one degree C. NOAA has reported that as of 2021 it was plus 0.84°C, lower than it was in 2016. Scaremongering the public with this small amount of warming will not help us avoid whatever the climate decides to do. We cannot prevent a climate from changing by lowering CO2 emissions, a process that takes no CO2 out of the atmosphere. Nor can we capture and store enough CO2 to possibly affect the climate. The only plausible and viable path forward is to use all of our resources to build up infrastructures to survive extreme weather and than adapt to it. Continuing these misguided efforts to eliminate all of the energy that got us here (zero emissions???) will create more problems for more people than any climate "catastrophe" could ever do. We need the energy for the transportation being used to move forward...to transition away from those same fuels.

 

[write4u]

We cannot prevent a climate from changing by lowering CO2 emissions, a process that takes no CO2 out of the atmosphere.

We do not need to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. We just cannot add massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere without penalty.

Nor can we capture and store enough CO2 to possibly affect the climate.

Yes we can. We can stop clearcutting our forests or we can intensify the production and use of industrial Hemp that is 10 x better at sequestering CO2 than trees.

The only plausible and viable path forward is to use all of our resources to build up infrastructures to survive extreme weather and than adapt to it.

IMO, the only plausible and viable path forward is to convert to a more ecologically friendly lifestyle while we still can.

Continuing these misguided efforts to eliminate all of the energy that got us here (zero emissions???) will create more problems for more people than any climate "catastrophe" could ever do.

that is an unsupported statement. We have plenty of undeveloped clean energy producing resources available. The sun has an unlimited supply of energy, sufficient to meet all human energy needs. SUNLIGHT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT ENERGY TO CREATE ALL LIFE ON EARTH!

We need the energy for the transportation being used to move forward...to transition away from those same fuels.

Until we have made the transition and no longer need to "drill baby drill" until we run out of a "limited resource" anyway. 50 years is what we've got!
Then it all ends unless we have "adapted" to a less polluting energy efficient lifestyle.

Human are the dirtiest animal on earth. We are an invasive parasitic species that destroys its host.

As Prof Bartlett predicted, we will need to limit our population growth and energy use voluntarily or nature will do it for us. I believe nature is already beginning to thin out our population dense areas. Viruses are remarkably effective that way. Even if nature uses stochastic methods, it is sufficiently dynamic to make any schotastic probability a certainty.

 

[Broadlands]

We do not need to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. We just cannot add massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere without penalty. Yes we can. We can stop clearcutting our forests or we can intensify the production and use of industrial Hemp that is 10 x better at sequestering CO2 than trees.
IMO, the only plausible and viable path forward is convert to a more ecologically friendly lifestyle. that is unsupported statement. Until we have made the transition and no longer need to "drill baby drill" until we run out of a "limited resource". 50 years is what we've got.
Then it all ends unless we have "adapted" to a less polluting lifestyle.

Human are the dirtiest animal on earth. We are an invasive parasitic species that destroys its host.

Wow! Speak for yourself about humans. Your ignorance of what humans can do to affect the Earth's climate is your basic problem.

"We do not need to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. We just cannot add massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere without penalty. Yes we can..."

Here are the numbers on YOUR unsupported assertion: "Yes we can"...

an important background fact seems to have escaped your background :

• "Atmospheric CO2 levels are expressed in parts per million by volume (ppm). To convert from ppm to gigatonne of carbon, the conversion tables of the CDIAC, (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) advise that 1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon. Using the 44 over 12 rule, this means 1 ppm = 7.8 Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.”
  Source: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/faq.html#Q6

There is no way that anyone can store one ppm of oxidized carbon and have that make any effect on Earth's climate. Billions of tons would be required. Converting to some idealistic "ecologically friendly" lifestyle will take energy...fossil fuel energy. That adds to the amount we have already added.

 

[write4u]

Wow! Speak for yourself about humans. Your ignorance of what humans can do to affect the Earth's climate is your basic problem.

Exactly what does that ad hominem mean?
Tell that to these people; https://www.climate.gov/media/12885

W4U said: "We do not need to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. We just cannot add massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere without penalty. Yes we can..."

No we cannot, we are destroying the dynamic balance of the ecosphere and the results will be disastrous!

Note that you misrepresented my posit. The "Yes we can" was in response to your declaration that

Nor can we capture and store enough CO2 to possibly affect the climate.

To which I responded "yes we can"

Here are the numbers on YOUR unsupported assertion: "Yes we can"...
an important background fact seems to have escaped your background :

• "Atmospheric CO2 levels are expressed in parts per million by volume (ppm). To convert from ppm to gigatonne of carbon, the conversion tables of the CDIAC, (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) advise that 1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon. Using the 44 over 12 rule, this means 1 ppm = 7.8 Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.”
  Source: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/faq.html#Q6

There is no way that anyone can store one ppm of oxidized carbon and have that make any effect on Earth's climate. Billions of tons would be required. Converting to some idealistic "ecologically friendly" lifestyle will take energy...fossil fuel energy. That adds to the amount we have already added.

Oh, we cannot shift some of our technology to develop Solar harvesting strategies? C'mon, you are so enchanted with man's technology and now you are claiming we cannot use the Sun or Wind as inexhaustible sources of energy? You don't really care that much about the future do you?

This is today
Current Energy use and Solar potential

288,546,955 Energy used today (MWh), of which:
245,627,462- from non-renewable sources (MWh)
43,452,655- from renewable sources (MWh)
1,808,049,562,648 Solar energy striking Earth today (MWh)

Worldometer - real time world statistics

Live world statistics on population, government and economics, society and media, environment, food, water, energy and health.

www.worldometers.info

What is the potential for wind energy?

The Wind Vision Report shows that wind can be a viable source of renewable electricity in all 50 states by 2050. Wind energy supports a strong domestic supply chain. Wind has the potential to support over 600,000 jobs in manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and supporting services by 2050.

Wind Vision

The Wind Vision Report takes America’s current installed wind power capacity and assesses the potential benefits of various scenarios.

www.energy.gov

Seems you have become a "lazy" thinker, hoping we will never run out of oil.

 

[Broadlands]

Oh, we cannot shift some of our technology to develop Solar harvesting strategies? C'mon, you are so enchanted with man's technology and now you are claiming we cannot use the Sun or Wind as inexhaustible sources of energy? You don't really care that much about the future do you?

No,,, we cannot simply shift technologies without using fossil fuel energy for the transportation required. No alternative energies have ever been manufactured, delivered and installed without using a conventional vehicle that runs on fossil fuels. Even renewable biofuels are 90% fossil fuel and only 10% ethanol from corn and sugarcane planted and harvested using gasoline-powered vehicles.

 

[write4u]

No,,, we cannot simply shift technologies without using fossil fuel energy for the transportation required. No alternative energies have ever been manufactured, delivered and installed without using a conventional vehicle that runs on fossil fuels. Even renewable biofuels are 90% fossil fuel and only 10% ethanol from corn and sugarcane planted and harvested using gasoline-powered vehicles.

You are ignoring the solar and wind power energy already in place.
We already have enough solar and wind power to power all further development of any green energy harvesting systems..

Is solar power growing in the US?

American solar jobs have increased 167% over the past decade, which is five times faster than the overall job growth rate in the U.S. economy. There are more than 250,000 solar workers in the United States in fields spanning manufacturing, installation, project development, trade, distribution, and more.

Quarterly Solar Industry Update

Each quarter, NREL conducts a presentation of technical trends within the solar industry.

www.energy.gov

You need to let go of oil. It was an easily available and efficient, but dirty energy source. It has had its time and we are running out of the easy part of harvesting it. Now we need to switch to high tech energy harvesting technology.

We can do better than 1876 technolgy.

 

[write4u]

There is no way that anyone can store one ppm of oxidized carbon and have that make any effect on Earth's climate. Billions of tons would be required. Converting to some idealistic "ecologically friendly" lifestyle will take energy...fossil fuel energy. That adds to the amount we have already added.

Oh, but we can keep adding billions of tons without effect unless it is used for converting to green energy? Does that make sense?

ENVIRONMENT
3,530,988 Forest loss this year (hectares)
4,753,665 Land lost to soil erosion this year (ha)
24,737,195,698 CO2 emissions this year (tons)
8,147,611 Desertification this year (hectares)
6,648,707 Toxic chemicals released
in the environment this year (tons)
Sources and info:

• Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Program - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• United Nations Environment Program
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Worldometer - real time world statistics

Live world statistics on population, government and economics, society and media, environment, food, water, energy and health.

www.worldometers.info

Read em and weep!

​

 

[Broadlands]

Oh, but we can keep adding billions of tons without effect unless it is used for converting to green energy? Does that make sense?

ENVIRONMENT
3,530,988 Forest loss this year (hectares)
4,753,665 Land lost to soil erosion this year (ha)
24,737,195,698 CO2 emissions this year (tons)
8,147,611 Desertification this year (hectares)
6,648,707 Toxic chemicals released
in the environment this year (tons)
Sources and info:

• Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Program - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• United Nations Environment Program
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Worldometer - real time world statistics

Live world statistics on population, government and economics, society and media, environment, food, water, energy and health.

www.worldometers.info

Read em and weep!

​

You are ignoring the solar and wind power energy already in place.
We already have enough solar and wind power to power all further development of any green energy harvesting systems..

Solar and wind transport nothing. CVs are doing all of the transportation and they run on fossil fuels. No way around that as we transition to solar and wind.

You need to let go of oil. It was an easily available and efficient, but dirty energy source. It has had its time and we are running out of the easy part of harvesting it. Now we need to switch to high tech energy harvesting technology.

Oil is what we are using to make our lives better and allow us to transition to solar and wind. No alternative energy installation has ever been installed with electric transportation. If you can't agree on that there is little reason to listen to your repetitious numbers from the EPA who considers the food for photosynthesis a pollutant. NASA satellites are showing that the Earth is getting greener. Try some independent thinking outside of the "green" box you are in.

 

[Hayseed]

We will find out this winter what the European subjects think of climate change. The rest of the world will be watching.

 

[Broadlands]

We will find out this winter what the European subjects think of climate change. The rest of the world will be watching.

We have already found out how important the climate emergency really is compared to the need for fuels that make transportation possible. President Biden has taken oil out of our strategic reserves to make those fuels more available at a lower price. The promises made in Glasgow and the concern for the climate crisis have been put on hold. And, so far there has been very little push-back from the green new deal proponents who protest and demand we stop using those fuels.

 

[Hayseed]

I think vast new coal supply chains will be needed for Asia.

 

[write4u]

Try some independent thinking outside of the "green" box you are in.

I beg to differ. It is you who is in the oil box, trying to fix the past.

I try to follow the scientific observations and consensus findings.
Thinking outside the green box may be independent, but I have more faith in the science than in my own subjective wishful thinking.

The reason why we still need oil is our initial shortsightedness and greed
15 years ago Prof Bartlett laid out the problem in very clear and certain terms.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function”. Professor Albert Allen Bartlett's quote says it all. Apr 6, 2020

The Greatest Shortcoming of the Human Race Illuminated by COVID-19 — Sterling Hawkins

Resilience is something we build overtime.What we’re watching AND experiencing right now with COVID-19 is the tangible (albeit negative) experience of exponential growth. Dealing with the COVID-19 virus we are watching, experiencing and planning for…

www.sterlinghawkins.com

I am sure you understand the "exponential function", but have you given it much thought lately?

 

[Broadlands]

I think vast new coal supply chains will be needed for Asia.

Yes, China is investing in new cleaner and more efficient coal-fired plants and mining more coal. China has cornered the markets for strategic mineral resources (lithium and cobalt). They understand that "global warming" is not a crisis, energy is. The West is doing the opposite and when the winds stop blowing on wind turbines and the Sun is not shining on those solar farms covered in snow, some winters will create more problems similar to those they have already done. We need the fossil fuels for transportation as well as for backups when renewables fail.

 

[write4u]

We need the fossil fuels for transportation as well as for backups when renewables fail.

Indeed, now is the time to start conserving the remaining reserves.
Wars don't do much for industrial production except weaponry.

As far as China is concerned, this may come as a surprise.

China’s Wind Power Push Threatens US Strategic Interests

China built more offshore wind turbines in 2021 than every other country did in the past five years. It installed 55.8 GW worth of turbines in 2021, beating its own 2020 record of 52 GW— a 19.4% increase. China now has 344 GW worth of wind turbine electrical generation. May 23, 2022

China’s Wind Power Push Threatens US Strategic Interests

For years, Beijing has been comprehensively investing in wind power. The US can expect major ramifications if Chinese companies further expand in this critical market.

www.forbes.com

 

[Broadlands]

Indeed, now is the time to start conserving the remaining reserves.
Wars don't do much for industrial production except weaponry.

Lowering emissions urgently to zero does exactly that. The problem is that policy leaves us without the ability to use them to complete the transition to those replaceable renewables and to electric transportation. Taking oil from strategic reserves to provide cheaper transportation fuels does the opposite. And reducing emissions takes no CO2 from the atmosphere. On balance, not a very well planned energy future.

 

[write4u]

And this may offer an alternative method of storing energy.

German Firm Turns Aluminum Smelter Into a ‘Virtual Battery’

Trimet, Germany’s largest producer of aluminum, is testing technology to turn its smelters into a "virtual battery" capable of delivering 1.12 gigawatt-hours of flexible capacity.

The family-owned business is investing €36 million ($39 million) in a two-year industrial-scale pilot of systems that will allow power use across 120 electrolysis cells to be dialed up or down by 25 percent in either direction, for up to several hours.

The pilot is being carried out on a single production line in Trimet’s Essen aluminum smelter.

The production line will be able to compensate for fluctuations in the power grid, making it easier to manage intermittent renewables. The virtual battery concept relies on adjustable heat exchangers, developed with help from the University of Wuppertal in North Rhine-Westphalia, that can maintain the energy balance in each electrolysis cell irrespective of changing power inputs.

German Firm Turns Aluminum Smelter Into a ‘Virtual Battery’

Trimet tests technology to create 1.12 gigawatt-hours of flexible capacity.

www.greentechmedia.com

 

[write4u]

Lowering emissions urgently to zero does exactly that. The problem is that policy leaves us without the ability to use them to complete the transition to those replaceable renewables and to electric transportation. Taking oil from strategic reserves to provide cheaper transportation fuels does the opposite. And reducing emissions takes no CO2 from the atmosphere. On balance, not a very well planned energy future

I agree. Unfortunately there are some unusual pressures in play.
But I also applaud Biden's plan to invest massively in permanent energy harvesting.

Inescapable fact is that the available supplies of oil and coal are limited and we will run out sometime in the future. We better be prepared to switch over completely. The end of fossil fuels is nearer than we think!

p.s. Another underused CO2 sequestration model is "Industrial hemp".

This incredible versatile and ecofriendly raw material is used by many farsighted countries. Why is Canada way ahead of the US in this invaluable cash crop?

Canada has grown hemp, primarily for hemp seed, across the Prairies for more than 20 years. The 2018 Cannabis Act relaxed regulatory controls on industrial hemp, in addition to legalizing recreational cannabis, and cannabidiol extraction is now permitted.Aug 26, 2019

Canada Industrial Hemp Production Trade and Regulation

Did you know that in Germany, BMW uses Hemp door panels in some of their cars.

btw. Hemp has 25000 industrial uses

Hemp seed (grain) and its derivatives have also gained popularity among consumers and have multiple uses. It is estimated that the hemp market entails more than 25,000 products, ranging from textiles, clothing, rope, home furnishings, industrial oils, cosmetics, to food and pharmaceuticals [4,20,21].Sep 7, 2020

Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa) as an Emerging Source for Value-Added Functional Food Ingredients and Nutraceuticals

Industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L., Cannabaceae) is an ancient cultivated plant originating from Central Asia and historically has been a multi-use crop valued for its fiber, food, and medicinal uses. Various oriental and Asian cultures kept records ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Broadlands]

And this may offer an alternative method of storing energy.

German Firm Turns Aluminum Smelter Into a ‘Virtual Battery’

German Firm Turns Aluminum Smelter Into a ‘Virtual Battery’

Trimet tests technology to create 1.12 gigawatt-hours of flexible capacity.

www.greentechmedia.com

But not without using energy, much of it being needed for transportation...biofuels.

I agree. Unfortunately there are some unusual pressures in play.
But I also applaud Biden's plan to invest massively in permanent energy harvesting.

Inescapable fact is that the available supplies of oil and coal are limited and we will run out sometime in the future. We better be prepared to switch over completely. The end of fossil fuels is nearer than we think!

p.s. Another underused CO2 sequestration model is "Industrial hemp".

This incredible versatile and ecofriendly raw material is used by many farsighted countries. Why is Canada way ahead of the US in this invaluable cash crop?

Canada Industrial Hemp Production Trade and Regulation

Did you know that in Germany, BMW uses Hemp door panels in some of their cars.

btw. Hemp has 25000 industrial uses

Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa) as an Emerging Source for Value-Added Functional Food Ingredients and Nutraceuticals

Industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L., Cannabaceae) is an ancient cultivated plant originating from Central Asia and historically has been a multi-use crop valued for its fiber, food, and medicinal uses. Various oriental and Asian cultures kept records ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

None of that can be accomplished without using the energy for the transportation required. Biofuels are renewable but are 90% fossil fuels. Biden has made them more available and less costly by "borrowing" oil from strategic reserves. Even though it is a direct contradiction to his promise in Glasgow to lower US emissions. John Kerry has not complained. We need those fuels to continue the transition to the replaceable renewables. Maybe he's beginning to see the light? Maybe you are too. But there's little evidence of that. Indeed, you are still worried about the small amount of warming that a 50% increase in CO2 has been part of.

 

[write4u]

But not without using energy, much of it being needed for transportation...biofuels.

Not solar and wind!!!!!!! just cables.

Transportation is for mined fossil and biofuels.!!

 

[Broadlands]

Not solar and wind!!!!!!! just cables.

Transportation is for mined fossil fuels.!!

Very funny. Cables don't transport people, food, or any of the materials needed for making, delivering and installing these eventually replaceable renwables. And yes, transportation is being used for delivering fuels to gas stations everywhere. How else are we supposed to live otherwise. Time to stop writing 4 U to ignore with increasingly silly responses.

 

[write4u]

Very funny. Cables don't transport people, food, or any of the materials needed for making, delivering and installing these eventually replaceable renwables. And yes, transportation is being used for delivering fuels to gas stations everywhere. How else are we supposed to live otherwise. Time to stop writing 4 U to ignore with increasingly silly responses.

Electric powered vehicles can transport everything! Quiet, clean, rechargeable and CHEAPER!

It's time to wake up my friend. Fossil fuels are DONE! There is no need to get huffy about it.

Electric vs. Gas Cars: Is It Cheaper to Drive an EV?

A 2018 study by the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute found that the average cost to fuel an electric car was $485 a year, compared to $1,117 for a gas-powered vehicle.May 25, 2022

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/electric-vs-gas-it-cheaper-drive-ev#

So who is the silly one here ? You are too rude as well as uninformed.
I'm done with you.

 

[Roj5]

Electric vs. Gas Cars: Is It Cheaper to Drive an EV?
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/electric-vs-gas-it-cheaper-drive-ev#

So who is the silly one here ? You are too rude as well as uninformed.
I'm done with you.

Unfortunately it is heading the opposite way in the UK. Sorry on the source but the point is becoming valid.

"Motoring experts have warned drivers across the UK that EVs could be more expensive to run than petrol equivalents from October. "

Electric car users warned as charging more expensive than PETROL

AN URGENT warning has been issued to electric vehicle owners as the energy price cap is set to increase in October.

www.express.co.uk

 

[write4u]

Unfortunately it is heading the opposite way in the UK. Sorry on the source but the point is becoming valid.

"Motoring experts have warned drivers across the UK that EVs could be more expensive to run than petrol equivalents from October. "

As long as electricity is derived from fossil fuels that is certainly true. The idea is to "replace" fossil fuels with cheap inexhaustible energy sources .

All the complaints about the uncertainty of weather conditions is just a matter of diversification and networking of various collection sites and networking mechanics.

How many oil wells have been drilled and occupy acres of processing and transport systems? If we replace all those oil wells with solar and wind collectors the networking would be considerably less complicated than maintaining transport networks of raw fossil fuels.

Just in the US.
Thirty thousand square kilometers of land lost to oil and gas development
First tally of drill site land area finds significant lost ecological productivity

All across North America, patches of land are being taken over by the rigs, roads, and storage facilities of thousands of oil and gas drilling operations. Now, for the first time, a study tallies up the land area they consume: 30,000 square kilometers—an area equivalent to three Yellowstone National Parks.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Think about how many solar collectors and wind generators that area could accommodate in various strategically placed locations.

Interestingly, high exposure to solar energy (deserts) and windy areas (mountain gorges) are not well suited to life but offer ideal places for energy collectors.

 

[Hayseed]

These are dangerous times for the European people. The people of today's society do not know how to live without electricity. We depend on it so much...we forget....without juice we have nothing. Without electricity we have no water.

Lets see how the leaders and experts handle energy this winter. The only reason for this hardship is political policy.........not a lack of resources. And not a death count........this is pure academics.

The academics to keep us safe.