Hello, I realise this post is a little old so I don't know if you'll see this. Thank you for recognising that Saskatchewan peeps are organic populist\socialists. The health care system and the crown corporations especially sasktel and sask power were a collective necessity with small sparse populations on a large land mass.
I can't help but wonder if the green agenda has something to do with the general uselessness of the industry. The solar energy sector in the United States comprises 40% percent of the energy workforce yet only produces 1.5% of power. I think the output of power per person ratio was something like 40 solar workers to 1 coal energy worker, and far greater than that for nuclear.
I feel like this "managerial elite" suffers from a failure to launch syndrome. Like they don't actually want anything to be built. Or function. They just want to send endless chain emails, do endless studies, tick boxes. There seems to be a genuine fear real of infrastructure. I wonder if as a society were taking on less large scale projects.
I don't believe I've ever dedicated a post to the topic (maybe the "Class dynamics" post), but I've frequently made the point that the bourgeois capitalists are a different class, with different class interests, values, and dispositions than the managerial class. Your comment here does a nice job of capturing an important dimension of those differences. Also, since my recent discovery of the ideas of Michéa, I'd be curious to go back and reassess prairie socialism; I suspect it would be edifying. Thanks for your comment. (And yes, I see them all.)
I'm sure if you go look where the resources are to make solar panels and batteries, you could make the same argument. Furthermore, it would be pretty easy to tighter your grip on Alberta, or just stockpile centuries' worth of uranium. Your argument isn't convincing to me.
The problem with nuclear power is that the establishment has gone with varieties pressurized water reactors that use solid uranium fuel rods. This decision was made to lock in a business model in which the nuclear industry makes it's money not in building and running reactors, but in fueling them.
But what if there was a readily-available nuclear fuel that doesn't include a lucrative fuel rod assembly process?
It's called thorium. It's in dirt. Everywhere. Thorium can be used in a reactor using liquid fuel (high-temperature fluoride salt). No fuel rods. Dirt cheap, inexhaustible fuel.
Learn about molten salt reactors (MSRs)/liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs) here:
And remember, not all thorium reactors are MSRs (as in your research you may come across anti-thorium info, almost all based on solid fuel thorium reactors, in an attempt by anti-nuclear activists to suppress MSR technology).
Thank you, Dave, for your comment. I'm curious, did you find your way here from the reply I provided on Twitter to Mark Schneider? I'm well aware of the third generation reactors, however I skirted the topic in the post because my understanding is that these remain largely schemes on paper. I've asked Mark and others about the operationalization of such reactors and I've only been cited a couple of examples. In any event, it seems like in practice they remain pretty rare, so I wouldn't expect them to impact the geopolitical situation I've described in the post. I certainly agree, though, should they become more common, establishing a clear and successful track record, they could well change the geopolitical energy situation, if indeed their power sources can be accessed from jurisdictions more aligned with the managerial liberal globalist agenda. On the other hand, if you know of many more of them being in operation than others have been able to cite for me, I'd certainly be interested in seeing the evidence on that.
Thorcon supposedly has a commercial model in the pipeline. Many years ago, the Chinese copped all of the technical papers for the MSR built and operated at Oak Ridge in the 60s (the papers are not classified). The scientific delegation was led by a scientist who is the son of a former Chinese premier, so their interest level in them is very high. It is presumed the Chinese have since been developing their own MSR. MSRs aren't going to change anything tomorrow, but they're on their way. We might end up buying them from the Chinese.
It is my understanding that LFTRs can be made relatively small, so the could possibly be distributed to provide power for smaller areas than today's PWRs.
Intriguing. Definitely something to keep in mind while following the developments.
Putting my Popper hat on, what event or set of events would disprove this hypothesis? Preferably, something that is likely to happen if it is wrong?
One of the theoretical objections that comes to mind is that oil extraction is vital to American petrodollar hegemony. Thus the push toward renewables must be fundamentally dishonest at the top levels of American power
Hi. As a possible falsification condition, consider DaveGinOly's comment, above. And my reply. There's the possibility of nuclear reactors which are not based on uranium and possibly on materials much more readily available in jurisdictions less hostile to managerial liberalism. If they prove successful, then (at least, in a perfectly rational world) I'd expect the globalist faction of the managerial class to adopt that technology as it would allow them to have a far superior energy source which they can control and remove their reliance upon uncooperative jurisdictions. Of course the complication is that we don't live in a perfectly rational world and they have been fear mongering over nuclear for so long, it might take quite a while to gradually recalibrate their media reality curation. However, if such nuclear technology proves to be a sufficient success, I would expect such a gradual recalibration. If they never recalibrate, then indeed they just may be possessed by a fervent fear of climate change, falsifying my hypothesis. Obviously this test will take time.
The contrary scenario would be *not* adopting those new generation nuclear reactors. It can serve as evidence against your hypothesis in, say, bayesian analysis, but not as a falsification.
Here is an analogy: the fact that the Second Coming has not yet happened does not contradict the hypothethis that it will happen at some point. Although it does serve as probabilistic evidence against it.
I think you're onto something. One aspect you don't touch on, though, is that the manufacture of "green" energy technologies is reliant upon raw materials - rare earths in particular - that are also largely found in the same resistant polities as hydrocarbons and radioactive fuel sources.
I think the reasoning employed by the managerial class for kneecapping the energy sector varies from person to person. I haven't seen this rationale before, but I'm sure it has crossed the warped minds of some of these misguided individuals.
I think this is a great hypothesis of what is actually going on with all of this climate change fear they are jamming down our throats! Everything you wrote makes perfect sense in explaining why they hate oil and gas so much! I live in Alberta by the way and yes the Trudeau Liberal government is doing everything it can to prevent us from getting it out of the ground and from exporting it elsewhere while they happily rob us of the profits in “transfer payments “ which all end up going to Quebec who now cut out English and only recognizes French as its one official language while the other 70% of Canada speaks English and we support their province financially?!
The whole Green agenda certainly isn't what it appears on the surface. I agree with that. Though, if by "Red" is meant Marxist or Communist, as I discuss in the post Know Your Enemy, I think that's a rhetorical strategy of dubious value.
I have the same fear, Bart. But I think they have too many pots on the stove right now. Loss of control is very likely and dangerous. But it’s an opportunity for correction if the right talent/majority is available to steer it.
Hello, I realise this post is a little old so I don't know if you'll see this. Thank you for recognising that Saskatchewan peeps are organic populist\socialists. The health care system and the crown corporations especially sasktel and sask power were a collective necessity with small sparse populations on a large land mass.
I can't help but wonder if the green agenda has something to do with the general uselessness of the industry. The solar energy sector in the United States comprises 40% percent of the energy workforce yet only produces 1.5% of power. I think the output of power per person ratio was something like 40 solar workers to 1 coal energy worker, and far greater than that for nuclear.
I feel like this "managerial elite" suffers from a failure to launch syndrome. Like they don't actually want anything to be built. Or function. They just want to send endless chain emails, do endless studies, tick boxes. There seems to be a genuine fear real of infrastructure. I wonder if as a society were taking on less large scale projects.
I don't believe I've ever dedicated a post to the topic (maybe the "Class dynamics" post), but I've frequently made the point that the bourgeois capitalists are a different class, with different class interests, values, and dispositions than the managerial class. Your comment here does a nice job of capturing an important dimension of those differences. Also, since my recent discovery of the ideas of Michéa, I'd be curious to go back and reassess prairie socialism; I suspect it would be edifying. Thanks for your comment. (And yes, I see them all.)
I'm sure if you go look where the resources are to make solar panels and batteries, you could make the same argument. Furthermore, it would be pretty easy to tighter your grip on Alberta, or just stockpile centuries' worth of uranium. Your argument isn't convincing to me.
The problem with nuclear power is that the establishment has gone with varieties pressurized water reactors that use solid uranium fuel rods. This decision was made to lock in a business model in which the nuclear industry makes it's money not in building and running reactors, but in fueling them.
But what if there was a readily-available nuclear fuel that doesn't include a lucrative fuel rod assembly process?
It's called thorium. It's in dirt. Everywhere. Thorium can be used in a reactor using liquid fuel (high-temperature fluoride salt). No fuel rods. Dirt cheap, inexhaustible fuel.
Learn about molten salt reactors (MSRs)/liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs) here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3rL08J7fDA&t=4416s
And remember, not all thorium reactors are MSRs (as in your research you may come across anti-thorium info, almost all based on solid fuel thorium reactors, in an attempt by anti-nuclear activists to suppress MSR technology).
Thank you, Dave, for your comment. I'm curious, did you find your way here from the reply I provided on Twitter to Mark Schneider? I'm well aware of the third generation reactors, however I skirted the topic in the post because my understanding is that these remain largely schemes on paper. I've asked Mark and others about the operationalization of such reactors and I've only been cited a couple of examples. In any event, it seems like in practice they remain pretty rare, so I wouldn't expect them to impact the geopolitical situation I've described in the post. I certainly agree, though, should they become more common, establishing a clear and successful track record, they could well change the geopolitical energy situation, if indeed their power sources can be accessed from jurisdictions more aligned with the managerial liberal globalist agenda. On the other hand, if you know of many more of them being in operation than others have been able to cite for me, I'd certainly be interested in seeing the evidence on that.
Thorcon supposedly has a commercial model in the pipeline. Many years ago, the Chinese copped all of the technical papers for the MSR built and operated at Oak Ridge in the 60s (the papers are not classified). The scientific delegation was led by a scientist who is the son of a former Chinese premier, so their interest level in them is very high. It is presumed the Chinese have since been developing their own MSR. MSRs aren't going to change anything tomorrow, but they're on their way. We might end up buying them from the Chinese.
It is my understanding that LFTRs can be made relatively small, so the could possibly be distributed to provide power for smaller areas than today's PWRs.
Got to your page via Robert Barnes' "Barnes' Brief": https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/upost/2329384/the-barnes-brief-friday-june-24-2022
(That page maybe paywalled.)
Intriguing. Definitely something to keep in mind while following the developments.
Putting my Popper hat on, what event or set of events would disprove this hypothesis? Preferably, something that is likely to happen if it is wrong?
One of the theoretical objections that comes to mind is that oil extraction is vital to American petrodollar hegemony. Thus the push toward renewables must be fundamentally dishonest at the top levels of American power
Hi. As a possible falsification condition, consider DaveGinOly's comment, above. And my reply. There's the possibility of nuclear reactors which are not based on uranium and possibly on materials much more readily available in jurisdictions less hostile to managerial liberalism. If they prove successful, then (at least, in a perfectly rational world) I'd expect the globalist faction of the managerial class to adopt that technology as it would allow them to have a far superior energy source which they can control and remove their reliance upon uncooperative jurisdictions. Of course the complication is that we don't live in a perfectly rational world and they have been fear mongering over nuclear for so long, it might take quite a while to gradually recalibrate their media reality curation. However, if such nuclear technology proves to be a sufficient success, I would expect such a gradual recalibration. If they never recalibrate, then indeed they just may be possessed by a fervent fear of climate change, falsifying my hypothesis. Obviously this test will take time.
The contrary scenario would be *not* adopting those new generation nuclear reactors. It can serve as evidence against your hypothesis in, say, bayesian analysis, but not as a falsification.
Here is an analogy: the fact that the Second Coming has not yet happened does not contradict the hypothethis that it will happen at some point. Although it does serve as probabilistic evidence against it.
You're right. I got it turned around in my head. Popper would be disappointed in me.
Wow, every paragraph of your work pulls the curtain back a bit more- thank you!
Thank you for the kind words. I always hope it's helpful for some to figure out for themselves what is going on.
I think you're onto something. One aspect you don't touch on, though, is that the manufacture of "green" energy technologies is reliant upon raw materials - rare earths in particular - that are also largely found in the same resistant polities as hydrocarbons and radioactive fuel sources.
I think the reasoning employed by the managerial class for kneecapping the energy sector varies from person to person. I haven't seen this rationale before, but I'm sure it has crossed the warped minds of some of these misguided individuals.
I think this is a great hypothesis of what is actually going on with all of this climate change fear they are jamming down our throats! Everything you wrote makes perfect sense in explaining why they hate oil and gas so much! I live in Alberta by the way and yes the Trudeau Liberal government is doing everything it can to prevent us from getting it out of the ground and from exporting it elsewhere while they happily rob us of the profits in “transfer payments “ which all end up going to Quebec who now cut out English and only recognizes French as its one official language while the other 70% of Canada speaks English and we support their province financially?!
Green on the outside....Red within.....
The whole Green agenda certainly isn't what it appears on the surface. I agree with that. Though, if by "Red" is meant Marxist or Communist, as I discuss in the post Know Your Enemy, I think that's a rhetorical strategy of dubious value.
I have the same fear, Bart. But I think they have too many pots on the stove right now. Loss of control is very likely and dangerous. But it’s an opportunity for correction if the right talent/majority is available to steer it.