How did our OroAzul project team find ourselves in the middle of this controversy? Since about 1972, I was 12, my reading showed three really scary things. Those nasty animal studies in the 1950s proving when you pack too many animals into too small a space they start killing each other.
World population was likely to hit 25B by 2,000. (Didn't happen) The Mariner probe to Venus proving that green house gas "warming" made Venus so hot lead is naturally molten on the surface. At that point I dedicated my career to learning as much engineering as I could to prevent these.
I guess being the child of the chair of the sociology department, associate dean of students and stepson of the college VP had some benefits, because I was able to complete my MS from what became the Georgia Tech Aerospace Systems Design Lab and helped found [Howard] Hughes Skunk Works.
Hughes Skunk Works (posthumously named after Howard Hughes Jr) is similar to Lockheed Skunk Works, only so secret I wasn't aware it existed or I'd helped found it until 30 years after I left McDonnell Douglas. It never officially existed and is now part of Boeing Phantom Works.
On one occasion our work shamed Lockheed so badly, that the US defense department accused us of falsifying the entire project results because they were physically impossible. The VP of LSW came, saw the device covered in dirt from a mission and wrote "it does what they say it does."
Part of my training was national defense, crisis response which combined with my liberal social justice upbringing allowed me to write the 21st Century Civil Resistance Manual. Another part was preventing Catastrophic Cascade Failures darkskyinnovation.com/articles/cli... or "tipping points."
I refuse to water to down the danger we all face from #climate collapse by using the euphemism "tipping point," and use more correct terms such as singularity, bifurcation and Catastrophic Cascade Failure. Cascade failures cause history's greatest disasters from the Titanic to the Hindenburg.
But even the reporters and editors at the Guardian have been misled by "ignore the man behind the curtain" because EVERY ONE of these articles is focused on raising the alarm that the threat is real while not investigating - IS THE SCIENCE BEHIND OUR SOLUTIONS VALID? It is NOT.
For specific, legalistic clarity to avoid misinterpretation I am focusing solely on sustainable energy GENERATION, not conservation. Conservation works, but no amount of REDUCTION can ELIMINATE fossil fuels. Our existing wind, solar tech et. al. do work, but are INADEQUATE to stop the extinction.
This may be total coincidence, but even as I'm writing this, I have to keep changing VPNs to access our own articles to get the URLs. This has been going on here for the past three weeks and I have to change VPNs every hour or so.
This article walks you through the math of how Maxwell Sr's corrupted scientific publishing industry misleads you with energy pricing. It shows that your 3.5 mW solar panel system is really 3.5 mW HOURS / YEAR and only 400 watts!! 10% of a gas generator. darkskyinnovation.com/articles/one...
Yes, generation, not conservation, is the issue. Nuclear gives the clean baseload that makes renewables reliable instead of fragile.
Sustainable means lasting many human lifetimes. We use a target of 500 years. True sustainability would need to be measured in millennia. Nuclear done properly is clean. Anything involving mining and extraction can never renewable. I assume you represent Russian uranium mining?
Can you please post your timeline to hit 50% conversion of total world energy consumption to nuclear? Please post your plans for how Indonesia, Nigeria and Philippines can convert 50% of their total consumption to nuclear and how fast? FYI, they are the 5th, 6th and 13th largest by population.