If man wants to progress, he must create new forms of energy of greater and greater densities.
Do Progressives have any idea as to what Progress is and takes?.jpg)
.jpg)
John Gast, "American Progress" (1872)
On Immanentizing the Eschaton (aka- "Progress")
If man wants to progress, he must create new forms of energy of greater and greater densities.
16 comments:
Via Copilot...
...green energy isn’t wishful thinking -- it’s a strategic shift grounded in physics, economics, and planetary survival. The Quillette video, narrated by engineer Paul Brown, argues that renewables are inherently flawed due to intermittency, low energy density, and infrastructure challenges. But these critiques often ignore the adaptive logic of energy transitions throughout history.
🧬 Counterpoints to “Fatal Flaws” Framing.
Energy density isn’t destiny: Lazare Carnot’s quote valorizes high-density energy, but that’s not the only metric of progress. Solar and wind may be less dense, but they’re abundant, decentralized, and clean. The shift isn’t about replicating fossil fuel intensity -- it’s about redefining resilience.
Storage and smart grids: Critics often cite intermittency, but advances in battery technology, grid interconnectivity, and demand response systems are closing that gap. The flaw isn’t fatal -- it’s engineering in progress.
Historical precedent: Every energy transition -- from wood to coal, coal to oil, oil to nuclear -- faced skepticism. Green energy is no different. The argument that “it’s not ready” echoes past resistance to change.
Economic momentum: Renewables are now the cheapest source of new electricity in many regions. That’s not wishful -- it’s market logic.
Climate imperative: Fossil fuels may be dense, but they’re also destabilizing. Green energy isn’t just a technical choice -- it’s a civilizational necessity.
[end]
Wow. Your stupidity has just made every engineer on Earth blush...
Via Copilot...
🧬 Forensic Dissection of the Carnot Invocation.
The quote itself: “If man wants to progress, he must create new forms of energy of greater and greater densities". This reflects a 19th-century industrial logic -- where progress was equated with thermodynamic efficiency and extractive power. It’s not wrong in context, but it’s historically bounded.
The misuse: Treating Carnot’s quote as a universal litmus test for energy legitimacy ignores:
Advances in distributed energy systems.
Ecological and geopolitical costs of high-density fuels.
The mythic inversion where “less dense” can mean “more sustainable” or “more democratic”.
The engineer chorus: Claiming that “every engineer on Earth” agrees is a rhetorical bluff. Engineers are not a hive mind. Many work on low-density systems precisely because they offer resilience, modularity, and ecological fidelity.
[end]
🧬 Forensic Rebuttal Logic.
Premise: Green energy lacks high energy density → therefore it’s invalid.
Appeal to Authority: Engineers agree → therefore dissent is stupidity.
Contradiction: Green energy exists → therefore engineers must be working on it.
No, they do it because they know that green energy jobs (remember that one) are highly subsidized by US taxpayers. Remember the misnamed "Inflation Reduction Act of 2022"? It wasted more money than Reagan entire US Defense Budget in 1981.
from Google AI
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) allocates approximately $369 billion in investments for clean energy and climate programs, including tax credits, loans, and grants to boost clean energy manufacturing, renewable power generation, and electric vehicle adoption. The funds are distributed through various mechanisms, such as extended tax credits for solar and wind power, the creation of new clean hydrogen and clean manufacturing credits, and direct loans for advanced energy projects.
---
For fiscal year 1982, the enacted U.S. defense budget was $194.6 billion in new budget authority. This was part of a major military buildup initiated by President Ronald Reagan, which significantly increased spending compared to the preceding Carter administration.
For fiscal year 1988, President Ronald Reagan requested a defense budget of $312 billion, marking the smallest real (inflation-adjusted) increase of his presidency, following previous years of intense build-up. However, this request was not fully granted by Congress
Are they blushing as they take the loot?
Why do you refer to yourself in the third person, Dervish?
You keep bragging about stealing loot, Dervish.
Do the government scientists at NOAA and NASA blush when they take Climate Welfare for Scientists?
When you're ignorant asses are burning, the result of climate change/global warming, I hope you enjoy your fate and that of your families because you did nothing other than to make it worse.
Via Copilot...
🧬 Forensic Breakdown.
Government subsidies do play a role in green energy development -- just as they do in fossil fuels, agriculture, defense, and pharmaceuticals. That’s not corruption; it’s policy scaffolding.
Most engineers in green energy are driven by technical challenge, climate urgency, and innovation logic. They’re not mocking the mission -- they’re building it.
The “wishful thinking” claim ignores decades of progress: wind, solar, battery tech, and grid optimization have all matured through rigorous engineering, not fantasy.
[end]
Says an LLM, NOT an engineer (like me).
...we're actually more clever than Green Energy Mass lines. It's probably due to the "rigour" that LLMs lack...
You should have watched the video, Les.
Nah, I never watch the propaganda you and your alter ego put up.
Post a Comment