Ultimately, Gates and Musk stand for unlimited human and economic growth, the perfect projection of their unlimited egos.

Australia's favourite climate guru is Ross Garnaut. Ultimately, his "Net Zero Economic Superpower" book is just a colossal projection of his own ego.

Elon Musk is contributing greatly to the tearing up of the ozone layer !

Dear Noel/Christine

Australia has about 20 million cars/trucks http://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/tourism-and-transport/motor-vehicle-census-australia/latest-release

So who are we, as selfish first-worlders, to deprive China + India's 2.8 Billion combined population the Energy to build 2 Billion cars/trucks?!
___________________

On Australia

1. As Australia's coal-fired power stations close we need more baseload power.

2. The 2MW from Snowy 2.0, maybe online 2025, will be totally inadequate to make up the shortfall http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/construction-on-snowy-2-0-in-full-force/

3. Large NUCLEAR U235 PW reactors like in France (forget futuristic Thorium Alan B.!) present the only non-greenhouse gas emitting baseload option. See http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

4. Also if Australia is to ever have Nuclear Propelled SUBMARINES we Aussies need to become accustomed to nuclear.

"Wake up people!".

As the climate increasingly doesn't do what the scammers have said it would do, people are waking up to them. Gates and Musk, although not the sorts of people most of us would have any time for, are proven achievers and and providers of the things that people want and need. The climate scamners are the antithesis of all that.

Just looking at NemWatch I see over 16 GW of Australia's 26 GW electricity demand comes from burning coal, oil and gas. Snowy 2 might help out with 2 GW (some of it stored coal energy) for a few days at a time. On top of 1-2% population growth we're supposed to junk fuel cars for EVs and rip out gas appliances in favour of electric so we'll need even more power.

We flog gas and uranium overseas when we'll need it ourselves in a few years. Developed countries aspire to the Aussie lifestyle so they want what we have. None of this bodes well for voluntarily cutting back on energy use.

I suppose it is possible, but I find it hard to believe people like Gates and Musk can be stupid enough to actually believe the global warming/CO2 scam. Once this is realised it becomes they are merely using the scam to increase their wealth.

Once this is realised it becomes obvious that only a fool would ever believe anything they ever said, & we must be very careful of anything they promote.

God..I feel like jumping off a cliff after reading this hype.

There is obviously a correlation between climate catastrophe fairy tales, and our apparent increase in mental health issues.

A look through the lens of this article and into the working brain of believers, shows the evidence for that link.

Dan

ttbn,

" Gates and Musk, although not the sorts of people most of us would have any time for, ..."

When the Californian government tried to close down factories in response to the WuFlu scare, Musk refused to play along and opened his Telsa factory in direct defiance of their made-up rules....
“Tesla is restarting production today against Alameda County rules,” the billionaire CEO tweeted. “I will be on the line with everyone else. If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me.”

I've got plenty of time for Musk, the most admirable of all the tech billionaires.

No matter what, the pollution we cause is highly alarming to say the least. We could do something to curb pollution but those who live off the taxes of manufacturers will never allow revenue to be reduced !

I can't believe that Gates and Musk are so dumb that they would fall for the global warming/CO2 scam.

That being the case they are promoting the scam to profit from it.

You would think they have enough money, so making more is just a game from them, & they obviously don't give a dam who, or how many they hurt doing it.

Hi Taswegian

You're right when you say:

"...I see over 16 GW of Australia's 26 GW electricity demand comes from burning coal, oil and gas. Snowy 2 might help out with 2 GW (some of it stored coal energy) for a few days at a time. On top of 1-2% population growth we're supposed to junk fuel cars for EVs and rip out gas appliances in favour of electric so we'll need even more power."

http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/construction-on-snowy-2-0-in-full-force/ says "Snowy 2.0 will deliver an extra 2,000 megawatts [MW] which is 2 Gigawatts (GW) as you rightly calculated.

And Snowy 2.0 suffers from at least 4 things:

1. "some of it is stored coal energy" as you say, to pump water up hill during off-peak use times.

2. The total cost of Snowy 2.0 has been constantly underestimated,

3. Snowy 2.0 is basically only a partial and declining impact solution, and

4. it just serves a limited market (the Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne) with too much loss to be effective for other major cities, I think.

So, all in all, other sources (and replacement sources) of baseload power are increasingly needed. Nuclear being a major part of the mix.

In 2019 Nuclear Energy was used in 30 countries. Many of them were the most advanced and environmentally aware countries.

For those 30 countries - at http://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/NuclearShareofElectricityGeneration.aspx in 2019 see the tables comparing them by:

1. Nuclear Electricity Production in GW(e). and

2. Nuclear as a source of baseload power as a % share of overall energy production.

As can be seen in 2. substantial users of Nuclear Energy include such environmentally aware countries as Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and Canada.

Taswegian, Electric cars have nothing to do with global warming aims.
For otheres at the present moment 68% or electricity is black and brown
coal, 17% solar and 9% wind.
The time is almost midday so solar will never be better.
If you want to generate 26 gigawatts from wind and solar it is no
good installing 26gwatts of renewables you have to multiply it by a
number that is arguable and inversely dependent on the size of the country.
Pick a number between 5 and 12.