Question

December 13, 2023

In the year 404 BC, after decades of chaotic and bloody conflict among ancient Greek city states in the Peloponnesian War, Athens finally surrendered to its rival Sparta.

The defeat marked the end of the Golden Age of Athens… and Athenian democracy; almost immediately after the war was over, Sparta’s chief military commander created a ‘junta’ style dictatorship to rule over Athens. Democracy died overnight.

This council of dictators became known as the “Thirty Tyrants”, and their regime was brutal.

The Thirty Tyrants waged genocide on the Athenians, exterminating roughly 5% of the population. They exiled or murdered ideological opponents. They confiscated people’s property. And they strictly controlled how Athenians were allowed to live their lives.

At one point during their regime (according to Xenophon’s Memorabilia), Socrates was summoned before the Thirty Tyrants and told that he was prohibited “to hold any conversation whatsoever with the young”.

Apparently, they were quite concerned about the famous philosopher spreading disinformation.

In our modern era, we hear quite a lot that “democracy is under attack.” It’s one of the favorite catchphrases of the left; when they don’t like a particular speaker, political candidate, or idea, they say that it ‘threatens democracy’.

Yet these same people have created their own version of the Thirty Tyrants who have been anointed with quasi-dictatorial powers. Nobody elected them. But they have an absurd amount of authority to govern how everyone else is allowed to live their lives.

At the United Nations Climate Change Conference, which finally ended today in the United Arab Emirates, unelected fanatics from around the world gathered in a room to formally declare “the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era”.

Some 85,000 participants attended the two-week event, according to the UN, though the real decision-makers number a few dozen at most. These are today’s Thirty Tyrants, and they include people like unelected US climate envoy John Kerry, who arrived at the conference on his “wife’s” private jet.

Kerry was a key architect of the final resolution, which demands that member nations “[transition] away from fossil fuels in energy systems. . . in keeping with the science.”

In short, this means that coal-fired power plants, plus oil- or natural gas-based combined cycle power plants, etc. must be eliminated. Further, production of coal, oil, and natural gas also needs to be eliminated… or “phased-out” as the climate tyrants like to say.

Their ignorance, as usual, is overwhelming.

Bear in mind that oil, coal, and natural gas constitute over 50% of global electricity production according to the most recent data from the International Energy Agency. So, shifting away to renewable energy sources would require at least 12,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) of additional production from wind and solar.

Let’s briefly examine the numbers:

The LARGEST planned solar powered electricity project in the world is the Gonghe Talatan Solar Park in central China, which will reportedly max out at 16GW in capacity.

So, at best, the largest solar plant in the world will produce roughly 40 TWh of electricity per year, which is just 0.3% of the electricity needed to replace fossil fuels.

Now, let’s adopt a “can do” attitude and presume that hundreds other similarly sized projects will be built around the world. What resources would this require?

Well, the International Energy Agency’s own report shows that “optimally tilted” solar panels produce around 1,800 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year for every square meter of panels.

So, 12,000 TWh (equivalent to 12 TRILLION kWh) of electricity per year will require 6.6 BILLION square meters of solar panels. Needless to say, that is far more than has ever been produced in the history of the world… combined.

But let’s continue with our “can-do” attitude and assume that global solar manufacturers can ramp up production enough to provide such an absurd number of panels.

Remember that solar panels require silicon; in fact, one square meter of solar panels (again, according to IEA data) uses about 600 grams of silicon.

Silicon comes from quartzite rock, which is fairly common in nature. So, producing all those panels obviously requires mining lots and lots of rock.

But the process of extracting silicon from quartzite rock is complicated; in fact, the chemical reaction calls for ‘carbothermal reduction’ using pure carbon, i.e. COAL, in a ratio that requires 2 parts carbon for every 1-part silicon.

It’s also worth noting that silicon only constitutes about 5% of a solar panel. Much of the rest is made from plastic-- which is obviously a product derived from crude oil.

So that takes us back to the Thirty Tyrants’ overwhelming ignorance. They want the world to produce billions of square meters of solar panels… which will require nearly 8 billion kilograms of coal, not to mention gobs of oil-based plastic.

But at the same time, they want to eradicate coal and oil production forever.

This is pure insanity. You cannot produce solar panels without oil. You cannot produce solar panels without coal. In fact, the laws of chemistry require twice as much coal for every unit of silicon produced.

These progressive fanatics have already tried to reinvent biology by conjuring 10,000 new genders out of thin air. But they cannot reinvent chemistry.

Bizarrely, though, despite these passionate ignoramuses being so hilariously ill-informed, they still have tremendous power to set rules and policies around the world.

Today’s Thirty Tyrants are trying to dictate how the rest of us should live our lives.

In fact, the next time you run your new ‘eco-friendly dishwasher’ and the plates come out of the wash dirtier than before, you can thank John Kerry for his pitiful ideas. He’s even managed to ruin basic appliances.

The Thirty Tyrants are also deliberately trying to create shortages of critical resources-- oil, coal, natural gas, copper, and so many more-- even though producing solar and wind energy requires those very resources.

This is a major reason why I’m such an advocate for owning real assets… because the Thirty Tyrants and their armies of passionate ignoramuses are hellbent on making critical commodities skyrocket in value.

We might not be able to stop them. But we can at least benefit from their ignorance.

Simon Black, Founder
Sovereign Man

#population #military #climate #created #reason #China #world #laws

FocusOn1 7

Answer 1

The comparison between the UN climate change conference and the Thirty Tyrants of ancient Athens is not very accurate or fair. The Thirty Tyrants were a pro-Spartan oligarchy that ruled Athens by force and violence, killing and exiling thousands of citizens who opposed them. They also abolished democracy and imposed a strict and oppressive regime that controlled every aspect of people's lives.

The UN climate change conference, on the other hand, is a voluntary and multilateral forum where representatives of nearly 200 countries come together to negotiate and cooperate on addressing the global challenge of climate change. The conference is based on the principles of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is a treaty that was adopted by consensus in 1992 and ratified by 197 parties, including the United States. The UNFCCC recognizes the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities of countries to take action on climate change, taking into account their historical emissions, current capacities, and development needs.

The outcome of the conference, the Dubai Climate Pact, is not a binding or enforceable agreement, but rather a set of decisions that reflect the collective will and ambition of the parties to the UNFCCC. The pact does not impose any specific targets or timelines on any country, but rather calls for enhanced action and support to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, which was also adopted by consensus in 2015 and ratified by 191 parties, including the United States. The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2°C, preferably to 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels, by pursuing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

The pact also does not dictate how countries should transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, but rather encourages them to do so in a manner that is consistent with the best available science, as well as their national circumstances, priorities, and capabilities. The pact recognizes the importance of ensuring a just and inclusive transition that takes into account the social and economic implications of the energy transformation, as well as the needs and rights of workers, communities, and vulnerable groups.

Secondly, I would like to challenge some of the claims and arguments that you make about the feasibility and desirability of transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. You seem to suggest that this transition is impossible, undesirable, and harmful, based on some calculations and assumptions that are not very realistic or accurate.

You claim that shifting away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources would require at least 12,000 TWh of additional production from wind and solar, and that this would require 6.6 billion square meters of solar panels, which in turn would require 8 billion kilograms of coal and gobs of oil-based plastic. You also claim that you cannot produce solar panels without oil and coal, and that the laws of chemistry require twice as much coal for every unit of silicon produced.

However, these claims are based on several flawed assumptions and oversimplifications, such as:

• You assume that the only renewable energy sources are wind and solar, and that they have to replace all the fossil fuel-based electricity production. However, there are other renewable energy sources, such as hydro, geothermal, biomass, and marine, that can also contribute to the energy mix. Moreover, the transition away from fossil fuels does not have to be a one-to-one replacement, but rather a transformation that involves improving energy efficiency, reducing energy demand, and diversifying energy supply.

• You assume that the largest planned solar power project in the world, the Gonghe Talatan Solar Park in China, is the best and only example of solar power potential. However, there are many other existing and planned solar power projects around the world that have different sizes, capacities, and locations. For example, the Noor Abu Dhabi Solar Plant in the United Arab Emirates, which was inaugurated in 2019, has a capacity of 1.2 GW and produces 2.4 TWh of electricity per year, covering the demand of 90,000 people. The Benban Solar Park in Egypt, which was completed in 2020, has a capacity of 1.65 GW and produces 3.8 TWh of electricity per year, powering up to 1 million homes. The Pavagada Solar Park in India, which was commissioned in 2019, has a capacity of 2.05 GW and produces 4.7 TWh of electricity per year, meeting the energy needs of 2.3 million people. These are just some examples of the many solar power projects that are already operational or under construction around the world, demonstrating the feasibility and scalability of solar power.

• You assume that the International Energy Agency's (IEA) report on solar power is the most authoritative and reliable source of information on solar power. However, the IEA has been widely criticized for underestimating the potential and growth of renewable energy sources, especially solar power, in its projections and scenarios. For example, the IEA's World Energy Outlook 2020 projected that solar power would reach a total installed capacity of 1,760 GW by 2030, while the actual installed capacity of solar power in 2020 was already 714 GW, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). This means that the IEA's projection for 2030 was only 2.5 times the actual capacity in 2020, while the actual growth rate of solar power in the past decade was 10 times. Moreover, the IEA's report on solar power does not take into account the latest technological innovations and cost reductions that are driving the rapid expansion and deployment of solar power around the world.

• You assume that the production of solar panels requires a fixed amount of silicon, coal, and oil, and that these resources are scarce and finite. However, the production of solar panels is not a static and linear process, but rather a dynamic and evolving one that is subject to technological improvements, efficiency gains, and resource substitution. For example, the amount of silicon used per watt of solar power has decreased by more than 80% since 2008, according to BloombergNEF, and is expected to continue to decline as new materials and designs are developed. Moreover, the amount of coal and oil used in the production of solar panels can be reduced or replaced by other sources of energy and materials, such as renewable electricity, recycled metals, and bioplastics. Furthermore, the resources used in the production of solar panels are not necessarily scarce and finite, but rather abundant and renewable, depending on how they are managed and utilized. For example, silicon is the second most abundant element in the Earth's crust, and can be extracted from various sources, such as sand, clay, and quartz. Coal and oil are also not inherently finite, but rather subject to geological, economic, and environmental constraints that affect their availability and accessibility.

Therefore, your claims and arguments about the feasibility and desirability of transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources are not very convincing or credible, as they are based on faulty assumptions and outdated information. On the contrary, there is ample evidence and experience that shows that renewable energy sources, especially solar power, are viable, desirable, and beneficial, as they can provide clean, affordable, and reliable electricity for millions of people around the world, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change.

Answer 2

They can't ignore the math...well...I suppose, noting the education system is churning out math imbeciles and the politicians are considered the new math wizards, they can.

Answer 3

Alas! There are a lot more than 30 tyrants, these days.


Author	Author:
Type of abuse	I think this violates the community guidelines. Chat or rant, adult content, spam, insulting other members I think this is illegal. Harm to minors, violence or threats, harassment or privacy invasion, impersonation or misrepresentation, fraud or phishing, etc.
Additional Details If Needed

Chat room is open

Post a comment Author often replies/likes Reply Author often replies/likes Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

3 comments

Recent Visitors 7

Photos 11,798 More

Members 9,403Top

Moderators

Related GroupsMore