“What If India And China Used Natural Gas And Oil Like The U.S.?”… What a wonderful world it would be!

The world’s plants are salivating at the prospect.

Now WUWT is promoting its own hockey stick graphs.

When I did my early work on energy to create a lay presentation on the absolute realities of policies in terms of resources and sustainability under population pressure it was helped by the excellent Canadian engineer Douglas Lightfoot, who has always made the ultimately inevitable case for nuclear power very clearly. First saw his lecture at the UK IET (IEEE to Americans) in 2008, he had done all the work I was setting out to, David MacKay’s “arithmatic”, but in a more consumable way for lay people. I became even more KISS in approach at that moment..

If you consider about 1.5Billion people were using fossil fuels at sensible European developed economy rates until recently, not even at profligate waste rates as in USA, and then assume the future developed population may be 11 Billion at the same rates of energy use, how fast will that consume what fossil energy there is? Its the opposite of the rate of emptying of a reservoir, demand accelerates as supply is falling. But humans now have the technology to cope, and take us through the next ice age successfully, further south and lower down on the new shore line.

Nuclear is the ONLY option then, particularly for the USA, as it is the only energy source intense enough to support the profligate waste of energy and deliver all the health, wealth and happiness you can then afford, for as long as it rains and Uranium flows to the sea. Of course the American greens don’t want everyone else to enjoy what they have, hence the opposition. There is more nuclear binding energy available than most people could possibly imagine, or 11 Billion will need, with no environmental impact on a planetary scale. We can synthesise petrol for the resource intensive monster cars and global air travel for all from atmospheric CO2 and H2O, wholly sustainable recycling of hydrocarbons with nuclear energy, cleaner than diesel. David MacKay even helped me cost this, not cheap but doable, 5 or 6 times current cost of production? So we won’t ever run out of hydrocarbons, just natural hydro carbons, synthetic hydrocarbons will become available as the economics support the cost. Synthetic Ethylene for plastics as well.

The future will be fine, if energy use is the determinant, we have the (nuclear) technology when fossil inevitably disappears at an accelerating rate, and renewables just can’t meet even a subsistence energy economy demand level in most countries., on the physics facts. Just need some scientific reality to settle on the nonsense of climate change = renewables, when they cannot help as claimed re CO2 por anything else, and the effect of CO2 is probably insignificant compared to natural change, without the bogus assumptions re water vapour amplfication.

The CO2 control knob on the climate is a dummy, stuck there by the subsidy collectors of the climate industrial complex, using rigged models that cannot predict reality for that single inevitable reason. The guess is wrong. Doesn’t matter who makes it, if the PR doesn’t match nature, it’s WRONG! (Feynman composite.)

Hope the great CO2 fraud and its snake oil remedy don’t have to be seen to fail before the racket is ended, as it must on the science facts, and its proponents driven from power and office, as the lumpen proletariat who were told to believe in it realise they were very deliberately lied to on every aspect of the policies they were told must be supported to “save the planet” – by a greedy system of government, for the easy profit and jobs for insiders who sold the story, as well as the renewable subsidy collectors. The physics says the end of the state organised crime that is the climate change protection racket of renewable subsidy laws must come, the question is whether we can avoid an economic recession by ending the renewable energy / CO2 rackets before the serious effects arise?