Tag: natural resources

An independent energy expert explains how the UK’s “Net Zero” strategy will result in blackouts by 2030 – how the solution is nuclear and how natural gas could have reduced bills for decades

The UK plan is to shut down natural gas and so remove the back up to intermittent “renewables”.

Gas and nuclear rely on turbines rotating at 3,000 rpm to produce 50 cycles – renewables produce direct current – requiring an adjustment to convert to the alternating current used by the grid.

From here:

Gas powered electricity accounts for at leas 50% at all times. The Marxist lunatics want to turn it off by 2030.

Here is a 47-minute video:

Will blackouts come to Britain?

On 8 January 2025, wind provided just 2.5 GW (out of the claimed 17 GW) and imports of electricity from overseas interconnectors could only provide 5.7 GW – demand was for 47 GW.

Loss of load probability was 29% – it is usually zero – meaning power blackouts were possible.

NESO = National Energy System Operator – a quasi-autonomous non-government organisation – QANGO – formed when the Marxist Labour government bought out the grid assets from National Grid plc – with taxpayers money a few months ago.

Demark had to defer maintenance in order to supply 700 MW (not GW) from Demark – thy dd the UK a favour – the Danes were under no compulsion to send the electricity over.

All about “where did the reserves come from and how much back-up is available?”

Prices on 8 January 2025 reached £5,500 per MW – normally 120-150 per MW – a power company made a few million pounds in a few hours – why would not ALL power companies take advantage of the price?

Don’t forget, the flip side, if the power from wind turbines is not needed, “curtailment fees” are paid to the wind turbine operator – for NOT producing energy!

The YouTube write-up says this:

“Did the UK only narrowly avoid a blackout last week? Freddie Sayers is joined by energy analyst Kathryn Porter to break down the National Grid numbers and find out how Net Zero might cause blackouts by 2030.”

The solution is to get KEPCO (South Korean Electricity Company) to build 8 nuclear power stations in the UK over the next decade and let everyone make out like bandits!

Keep reading

The War Behind The War: What World War III Is Really Being Fought Over

World War III, like all 21st century wars, is not being fought over ideologies.

It’s being fought over energy and natural resources.

Because he who controls the world’s resources will be free to impose whatever ideology he wants.

Washington and London, the epicenter of the Western liberal world order that thinks it’s admirable and virtuous to redefine God-created genders and appropriate to unleash deviant transvestites on innocent school children, is seeking to neutralize the massive resources of Russia as it ramps up its “net zero” sustainable development model of economic progress. This economic model is really just a scam designed to pilfer what remains of the middle class and further subjugate them under AI-powered government-corporate control. Hence the need for more massive data centers, which Donald Trump is being used to build across the United States with $8 billion in foreign investment from a billionaire in the United Arab Emirates.

The surveillance state cannot be built out without these data centers scooping up, processing and storing highly personal information on every citizen. But Trump is either too dumb to know this or doesn’t care because he is blinded by a naive belief that without an expanded AI America will lose its global hegemony.

The modern technocratic state is going to be based on energy and carbon credits. Fiat currencies will become a thing of the past if these global predators succeed in their plans for a one-world surveillance state, where freedom of movement becomes a distant memory. Our healthcare and even our diets will also be tightly controlled by the elitist globalist predator class, whose interests are exemplified by the World Economic Forum and other elitist organizations.

With an understanding of the ongoing war over who controls the global food and energy supplies, it becomes easy to see how the NATO-Russia war (with Ukraine as NATO’s proxy) will blow up into World War III.

Moscow accused Ukraine Monday of conducting “energy terrorism” after what the Kremlin described as a failed drone attack against a Black Sea gas-compressor station that forms part of the major TurkStream gas pipeline linking Russia and Turkey.

Keep reading

Cutting Slovakia’s Gas Supplies May Well Backfire on Zelensky

On 1 January, Ukraine ceased to allow the transit of Russia gas to Europe. This ended almost uninterrupted supply of Russian piped gas to Europe, through sovereign Ukraine, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Some in the west have celebrated this as victory over Russia. More likely, it will backfire on Ukraine’s NATO and European aspirations.

I have always considered the sale, purchase and supply of gas or any other commodity as an entirely commercial matter. In that regard, even while posted to the British embassy in Moscow, I dismissed suggestions that Russia was weaponizing its energy supplies.

There was only one occasion, in 2009, when Russian gas supplies to Europe were halted temporarily following a dispute over Ukraine’s non-payment of its accumulated debts. Russia worked hard to position itself as a reliable supplier of gas specifically because it sells gas domestically at heavily subsidized prices; gas exports therefore subsidize domestic consumption.

Having good relationships with European consumers was prioritised, as Alexander Medvedev, the Deputy Chairman of Gazprom remarked to UK Members of Parliament who visited the British Embassy in early 2017.

Ukraine’s recent decision to end a long-standing gas supply route to Europe seems just another minor twist in the long-running saga of energy disputes between both countries.

Keep reading

Biden Regime Declares War on Energy Independence: Bans Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Development in Nevada’s Ruby Mountain for 20 Years — Mining Exempted

The Biden regime announced Monday that it will bar oil, gas, and geothermal development in northeastern Nevada’s Ruby Mountains for the next 20 years.

This sweeping restriction covers an estimated 264,000 acres of federal land and effectively halts new energy exploration in the region.

Under the guise of environmental stewardship, the regime claims the move is in response to requests from Native American tribes, conservationists, and outdoor sports enthusiasts.

But critics argue this is another clear example of Biden’s commitment to strangling domestic energy production in favor of appeasing radical environmentalist groups.

The regime’s proposal begins a 90-day public comment period and triggers a two-year moratorium on new oil, gas, and geothermal leases in the area.

The lands will remain accessible for mining activities, leading some to question the consistency of the regime’s environmental policies.

Keep reading

China has Banned US Exports of Key Minerals for Computer Chips – Leaving Washington with Limited Options

China recently banned the export of the minerals gallium and germanium to the US amid growing tensions between the two countries on trade.

The minerals are of critical economic value because they are used in computer chips, in military technology such as night vision goggles, and in the renewable energy industry, where they are important for manufacturing electric vehicles and solar cells. All of these areas are very sensitive sectors for the US and EU.

China has overwhelming market power over supply, because it is the source of 98% of primary gallium and 91% of primary germanium. Primary refers to “raw” sources such as mineral ore. In several sectors where the minerals are used, there are no substitutes for them.

Gallium and germanium are present in very low concentration as byproducts of major minerals – they’re known as trace minerals. Germanium’s primary source is the residue from zinc refineries and coal fly ash (a powdered residue produced when coal is burnt in power plants).

Gallium is mainly produced as a byproduct of bauxite ore (which is the main source for aluminium) as well as the processing stage to extract aluminium from bauxite.

The Chinese ban on exports of these minerals to the US closely followed Washington’s third crackdown in three years on China’s semiconductor (computer chip) industry. The US wants to curb exports of advanced chips to China that could be used in applications that threaten America’s security.

For example, advanced chips could be used in electronic warfare applications that make use of artificial intelligence (AI), or in advanced weapons systems such as hypersonic missiles. China said its ban on gallium and germanium was because of the minerals’ “dual military and civilian uses”.

According to a report in Reuters in 2023, the US Department of Defense holds a strategic stockpile of germanium, but no reserves of gallium. In October 2024, the US Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that a total ban on the export of gallium and germanium could result in a US$3.4 billion loss to US GDP.

Keep reading

What Are Ukraine’s Top 10 Minerals?

The Kiev regime is trying to curry favor with the incoming Trump administration by offering concessions on Ukraine’s critical mineral deposits – valued up to $11.5 trillion, according to the New York Times.

So, what are the top 10 natural resources and why are they so important?

Lithium: Ukraine has an estimated 500,000 tons of lithium reserves. The mineral is key to making batteries for electric vehicles (EVs). Two of Ukraine’s major lithium deposits are now under Russian control in the Donetsk and Zaporozhye regions.

Titanium: The US Geological Survey estimates Ukraine’s titanium reserves at 8.4 million tons, primarily in the central regions. Titanium is crucial to the military, aerospace, medical, automotive and marine industries.

Gallium: Ukraine was the world’s third-largest producer, generating around 4 tonnes of gallium annually. Gallium, found in small concentrations in other metal ores, is vital for semiconductors and LEDs.

Manganese: Estimated reserves of about 140 million tonnes of manganese are concentrated in the Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye regions – the second now part of Russia. Manganese improves the strength and workability of steel and other alloys.

Beryllium: Ukraine has proven reserves of 5,515 tons, primarily in the northwestern Zhitomir region. Beryllium is essential for the nuclear power, military, aerospace, acoustic and electronic industries.

Graphite: Ukraine holds 17.9 million tons of graphite, concentrated in the Zhitomir, Kirovograd and Dnepropetrovsk regions. The Pryazovsky site is now in Russia’s Zaporozhye. Graphite is critical for producing telecommunications, medical and military equipment.

Keep reading

Why Trump is Pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement (again)

It’s going to be at least four years of “Drill baby, drill!” as President-elect Donald Trump has said numerous times over the last few years.

With Trump’s election, the United States will now definitely withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Trump is seeking to overhaul energy and environmental policies, aiming to dismantle the Left’s climate agenda and eliminate programs that impede the country’s economic growth. While President Joe Biden’s negotiators will be at this week’s COP talks in Azerbaijan, nothing they agree to will be binding for the Trump administration.

In fact, Reuters is reporting that Trump’s transition team has already prepared executive orders and proclamations on withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement and shrinking the size of some national monuments to allow more drilling and mining.

The new Trump administration will push for a major ramp up of oil and gas exploration within the US, roll back environmental protections as well as impose heavy tariffs on electric vehicles and solar panels coming from China.

Trump is also expected to end the pause on permitting new liquefied natural gas exports to big markets in Asia and Europe and revoke a waiver that allows California and other states to have tighter pollution standards, according to a New York Times report.

Trump is also reported to be under pressure to pull the US out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for the first time if he becomes president.

While leaving the Paris Agreement would be legally straightforward, legal experts had previously been divided on whether Trump could withdraw the US from the UNFCCC without the approval of the US Senate and – if he did – how easy it would be for a future president to re-join.

However, given that the Senate is now in Republican hands, Trump could move forward on this should he so choose.

The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement is an international treaty aimed at limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, with efforts to keep it under 1.5 degrees.

Democrats have made climate change and the goal of limiting global warning a new religion.

They claim Trump risks derailing American climate policy, as well as the global fight against climate change.

They have called his election a “crushing blow,” a “dark day for the climate,” and “the greatest civilizational and climatic setback on our planet.”

Democrats believe the Paris Climate Agreement represents a positive, collective global effort to address climate change.

As part of the Agreement, countries set nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, fostering accountability and progress tracking. Developed nations pledge financial and technical support to help developing countries transition to greener economies and adapt to climate impacts, which can alleviate economic inequality.

The US has already committed billions in American taxpayer dollars to developing countries, a move many conservatives are upset about.

Keep reading

A victory for energy and climate sanity

Now that President Donald Trump has easily defeated Vice President Kamala Harris, Americans who desire freedom of choice and are at their wits’ end with sky-high energy prices can breathe a massive sigh of relief. Moreover, the millions of Americans who are sick and tired of the never-ending climate alarmist narrative courtesy of the federal government can also rest easy.

In a few months, Trump will return to the Oval Office in one of the most spectacular comeback stories in American political history. As he has said on multiple occasions during the campaign, one of his first priorities will be addressing the energy cost crisis created by the Biden-Harris administration.

Since President Biden entered the White House in January 2021, his administration has declared war on American energy independence as well as the fossil fuel industry in general. From killing the Keystone XL pipeline to slow-walking leases for oil and gas exploration on federal lands, Biden has made it abundantly clear that he sides more with climate alarmists than ordinary, hard-working Americans.

On the other hand, Trump’s track record during his first term and what he has outlined that he will do in his second term tells us that he will embrace commonsense energy policies that puts Americans first, regardless of the propaganda spewed by climate radicals and those who benefit greatly from the scam that is known as the green energy transition.

Unlike Biden and Harris, Trump believes in American energy independence. More accurately, Trump is a strong supporter of American energy dominance. Although these terms sound similar, it is important to understand the difference between the two. When we talk about energy independence, we are basically describing a situation in which the United States does not need to import oil and other energy sources from countries like Venezuela or Saudi Arabia. When we talk about energy dominance, we are describing a scenario in which the United States can supply energy to our allies across the world, especially in Europe.

By mid-2020, Trump had achieved American energy independence for the first time in decades. This is a key reason why gasoline prices, and energy prices in general, plummeted under Trump.

It is no great secret how Trump managed to turn the United States into a net energy exporter during his first term; he simply lifted the throttle off of U.S. energy producers. Trump allowed more fracking, opened up more federal lands for exploration, and reduced regulations that have hindered the industry for far too long.

Keep reading

Trump Has Sweeping Plans For His 2nd Administration: Here’s What He Has Proposed

Projected President-elect Donald Trump has made a number of sweeping proposals for a second term in office, outlining a wide-ranging agenda that targets federal regulations, taxes, immigration, and social issues.

As of Wednesday morning, The Associated Press projected that Trump is the winner of the election after securing enough electoral votes over his opponent Vice President Kamala Harris.

Early Wednesday, the former president and president-elect claimed victory in the 2024 presidential contest, telling supporters that voters had given him an “unprecedented and powerful mandate.” Early projections show that Trump may win not only the Electoral College but also the popular vote, something he’s never done in his previous two campaigns.

Immigration

Since 2015, Trump has made curbing illegal immigration a cornerstone of his campaigns. As president, he built or reconstructed about 400 miles of border barrier along the U.S.–Mexico border and implemented a number of rules curbing illegal migration into the country.

During the campaign, Trump often said that he would initiate the largest “mass deportation” effort in U.S. history if elected. Recently, he also warned Mexico that he would impose a 25 percent tariff targeting the country if it fails to curb illegal immigration and that he would raise that tariff if Mexico doesn’t comply.

Also, he’s suggested more enhanced screenings for immigrants, ending birthright citizenship—which may require a constitutional amendment—and reimposing certain policies enacted during his first term such as the “remain in Mexico” protocol.

Tom Homan, a former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who is expected to join the new administration, told media outlets last year that the scale of deportations depends on what resources are available.

During a “60 Minutes” interview in October, Homan was asked about whether families would be separated. Homan responded, “Families can be deported together.”

Vice President-elect JD Vance said in his debate with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Oct. 1 that deporting criminals would be a second Trump administration’s initial focus.

“You’ve got to reimplement Donald Trump’s border policies, build the wall, reimplement deportations,” Vance said, adding that the United States has 20 to 25 million illegal immigrants in the country.

“What do we do with them? I think the first thing that we do is we start with the criminal migrants.”

Keep reading

The Next President Needs a Foreign Policy Reality Check 

On top of ongoing conflicts in Europe and the Middle East and rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific, the next administration will inherit structural domestic and international obstacles that have been mounting for decades. Addressing these challenges while keeping our current U.S. foreign policy strategy on autopilot simply won’t cut it—it is time for a new approach. 

Since America’s victory in the Cold War, our national security elites in both parties have avoided asking fundamental questions about what missions the United States should be engaged in. These experts insist that maintaining a heavy military footprint across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia simultaneously is necessary for American security. 

Focusing on how to resource these missions without reflecting on their wisdom or sustainability misses the forest for the trees. Twenty years of open-ended nation-building efforts in the Middle East cost thousands of service members’ lives. These conflicts also came at the price of $6 trillion, damaged American military readiness, and aided our great power rivals by diverting our focus and energy.  

After decades of deficit spending, our national debt is approaching $36 trillion, a ten-fold increase from the end of the Cold War. After the COVID pandemic, our nation’s debt hadn’t been so large in relation to our economy since the Second World War. At this point, our interest payments alone are exceeding U.S. defense spending from this year. 

On top of these challenges, the trust funds for our biggest domestic programs—Social Security and Medicare—are on track to be insolvent in a decade and impose benefits cuts unless the next administration makes difficult domestic choices to secure their future.  

Taken together, the United States now experiences a strategic scarcity that our national security class has not had to deal with for generations.  

We cannot buy our way out of these constraints, as the Commission on the National Defense Strategy recently called for. Voters, especially in swing states, are already disillusioned with America’s level of involvement in conflicts abroad. Americans are not going to make the painful fiscal sacrifices needed to secure our financial future only to see trillions more squandered on flawed defense strategies.  

In the face of these challenges, Concerned Veterans for America’s new report, “Realism in Practice,” offers a fresh, disciplined path forward for U.S. foreign policy, rooted in assessing our strategic situation as it is, not as we might wish it to be. 

American strategic goals need to align with America’s available resources. Policymakers also need to use the right tools to achieve these goals, avoiding overreliance on an already overstretched, undermanned military. Our allies can and should take greater responsibility for their own defense. The United States needs to concentrate its military resources on regions most vital to its core interests, while relying more on diplomatic and economic engagement elsewhere.

Keep reading