We’re not taking about cars, we’re taking about electricity generation. Both renewable and fossil fuel infrastructure supply power to the grid. The work tries to muddy the waters, laud fossil fuels, and disparage renewables. You may clarify the point if you feel so inclined.
Buzzwordslop fossil fuel apologia.
One of the main points of this article seems to be about distinguishing wind turbines as ‘power amplifiers’ rather than energy sources.
"Consider a bicycle. A bicycle does not create energy. The energy comes entirely from the metabolic calories of the cyclist (which came from the sun via agriculture). What the bicycle does is amplify power. It allows the human to convert that caloric energy into mechanical work at a much higher and more efficient rate than walking.
A wind turbine operates on the exact same principle. It does not create energy; it intercepts the diffuse kinetic energy of the wind. It is an exquisite machine for amplifying power, allowing us to extract that kinetic energy at highly useful rates to do mechanical or electrical work.
But a power amplifier is not a net exergy source."
Nothing creates energy
Energy is neither created not destroyed. For all the rambling about thermodynamic impossibilities, the author never acknowledges this. Drawing some arbitrary line between energy sources and ‘power amplifiers’ is a distinction without a practical difference.
Then there’s some fossil fuel apologia with some token anticapitalist buzzwords.
"The reigning narrative claims that wind and solar are net exergy sources. It claims that they can fully replace the dense, high-ERoEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) fossil fuels that built the modern world, while simultaneously powering the civilisation that manufactures them, plus economic growth.1
This is thermodynamically false."
"To transition to renewables, we are injecting a massive pulse of critically scarce fossil exergy into the system to build new infrastructural mass (MM). Because this infrastructure is diffuse and intermittent, it requires a colossal increase in logistical and grid-management complexity (S).3 And because it is financed through our existing debt-based architecture, it concentrates wealth and accelerates financialisation (αf).
We are cannibalising our dwindling lifeblood to build a fleet of power amplifiers, under the delusion that they are energy sources. The thermodynamic result is a severe net decrease in Effective Circulating Power (Peff). The ‘Green Transition’ does not halt our orbital decay towards the Resource Entropy Singularity; it actively accelerates it by starving the real economy of circulating surplus at the exact moment we face a global supply shock."
And finally wraps up by saying that powering civilization with renewables would mean scheduling running your kettle around the weather outside.
Cool stuff.
Yeah, the ones the vent doesn’t catch fire
Not exactly what you meant, but the first thing that came to mind
https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Earth/The_Bees_Made_Honey_in_the_Lion’s_Skull/178274
Negative externalities like these must be re-imposed on polluting companies through democratic governance. Regulatory capture and subversion are carried out by individuals and must be treated as crimes against humanity.
In the context of print journalism, I definitely agree with you - having a clear account of the facts is a necessity for democracy. However, in the context of internet commentary and propaganda I think the practical constraints have to be weighed.
The right loves to Gish gallop, spewing out a steam of low quality arguments, lies, and misdirections. Countering each and every one of these blips with pear-review level journalism is not practical for most people.
It’s difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. Whether it’s a right wing propagandist, an AI bot, or a mentally unwell reactionary, you’re not likely to actually convince the ‘person’ you’re arguing with that you’re right, but generally speaking there are other, more receptive people reading the thread.
Online we’re always going to need meticulous fact checkers, but I think the rhetorical strategy for the average leftist should be more responsive. The focus should be on being correct about the core of whatever issue is being discussed and persuasive to a general audience. A piece like OP’s video is a good trade off in my view.
It’s right where it should be. NYC’s continuing legacy as a hub of culture and diversity should be an example for the rest of the country. Better things are possible and we need symbols to rally around.
That and the CIA importing heroin on an industrial scale. The point is that opiate addicts are marginalized victims of the same oligarchy that’s now threatening them, not the ones in power who actually deserve hatred.
You sound insufferable
The gerontocracy even extends to dogs smh my head
Nalivai closing with “you need to update your mental hatemap” seemed like a petty jab at you considering that they had just described that anti-Romani prejudice is a problem, but I wasn’t sure exactly how they meant it.
Are you using “hatemap” to mean Lodemike’s view of Europeans, or European’s view of minorities?
You’re letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Agreed, it’s such a punt. Why do any actual political analysis when you can just look at data. Why directly criticize trump for empowering a fascist paramilitary, weaponizing it against good, hard-working people looking for a better life, and immiserating hundreds of thousands of people by tearing families and communities apart. You can just point at Spanberger '25 being +22 compared to Harris '24. Fuck CNN.
You think that Blinken and Biden facilitating genocide is an alternate reality?