If the spontaneous combustion of anyone’s pants was to occur at the utterance of any intended misinformation, then surely, the visiting of site offices of many used cars sales yards, parliament hearings and city and shire council meetings would be fraught with danger.
According to a google search “least trusted professions”, “Australians have rated doctors, scientists and teachers as the most trustworthy professionals and politicians, government ministers, and ad executives as the least trustworthy” as of 17 Nov 2021. The search also advises that these figures are, “maintaining uniformity with global trustworthiness”, as “The least revered professions (in America) are lobbyists, car salespeople and members of Congress — with less than 10% of Americans perceiving them as having high/very high ethics”, as of 12 Jan 2022. How extraordinary, that those least trustworthy within the global society include the most powerful people in the world controlling the lives and futures of billions of people including their health and their wealth.
Do THEY have our best interests at heart?
Well, … according to 90% of the population they do not.
Are all politicians psychopaths or do only a mere 99.9% of them exhibit psychopathic tendencies, as a study in May 2018 claimed, which was readily debunked by SNOPES (like they are qualified to debunk anything) https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/are-politicians-actual-psychopaths/. That would mean that the 99.9% of psychopathic politicians give the 0.1% a bad name. That doesn’t sound fair.
According to google, “About 1.2% of U.S. adult men and 0.3% to 0.7% of U.S. adult women are considered to have clinically significant levels of psychopathic traits”. Ref. (Burton, B., & Saleh, F. M., Psychiatric Times, Vol. 37, No. 10, 2020) 1 Mar 2022.
According to google, those in places of power, including CEO’s who have psychopathic tendencies are in the order of 4% to 12% and so are found in high concertation in these positions even in the order of ten times of that found in a normal population.
This information is not my opinion. It is data supplied from a google search.
Are these figures reliable? My opinion is, … probably not.
My opinion would be that high tech that directs searches to a specific political narrative or edits or censors one perspective on an issue, is simply a modern style of “book burning”.
The truth stands up to scrutiny, even close scrutiny and the Devil is always in the detail. http://homeenergysecrets.com/the-devil-is-in-the-detail/
At the very least, I would suggest that one could safely assume that any of these people are opportunistic and may compromise their integrity, that is, not be clear and accurate about “the detail” for what they perceive as an advantage to them.
Lobbyists are low on the list of trusted entities, according to google, and money speaks louder to many of them than “the truth and nothing but the truth”.
Are these individuals generally smarter than the average bear?
ie do they have IQ’s over 100.
According to google, “the vast majority of university students (IQ) is situated between 100-110”, and since many politicians, who make decisions “for the good of community”, frequently have tertiary qualifications: they are generally of at least average cognition, although, many have negotiated their way into positions well above their capacity and frequently well away from any qualification they may have acquired.
Let’s get on to the energy perspective.
Our Prime Minister, at the time of writing is Anthony Albanese. According to google he has a BEc (Bachelor of Economics) from the University of Sydney. Also, according to google, “The BEC exam is considered the “easiest” of the 4 CPA exam sections, but it’s still not a walk in the park. It will require demonstration of advanced knowledge and skills and is the only exam section that tests writing ability”. “BEC has the highest passing rate. A lot of candidates consider it the least difficult of the 4 sections. It’s one of the shorter exams: 3 hours long, with 3 MCQ testlets (24 questions each), and 3 written communication questions”. The highlighting was done online. This is not my opinion.
I merely copied and pasted.
Albanese promised in his election victory speech to cut carbon emissions by 43% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels, promote renewables, offer electric car incentives, and assist in the development of community-owned solar and battery projects. Ref. https://latestnews.fresherslive.com/articles/anthony-albanese-nickname-education-qualifications-facts-about-anthony-albanese-453629
This is an interesting claim by an economist who does not even have a Certificate IV in renewable energy.
But there is more.
Here is a direct quote. ” … … … what does the future look like, and the future in many ways can be here right now, be very clear, Uhm , … is … solar panels … on the roof … charging your vehicle for free overnight. That’s what it looks like …. that’s what it looks like…”
Ref. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=277676687177920
Our Prime Minister wants to make it “very clear” that the future will include charging your vehicle for free overnight using solar panels. Please click the link and watch the clip, … it’s only 24 seconds and seriously, you can’t make this stuff up.
The Australian Prime Minister’s quote, being comparable to this typical Joe Biden quote, which is half the length at only 12 seconds but twice as logical can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14OK8_Cpiz0
This was after he claimed that he would “lead an effective strategy to mobilize trunalimunumaprzure”, which can be seen here: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3274524839342972 Sleep assuredly knowing that he has access to the codes to activate Americas’ nuclear weapons.
Firstly, even a grade four schoolboy knows that you can’t charge anything with a solar panel at night. There are some photovoltaics that can generate electricity from both sides of the panel, but they still need sun exposure to function. You can register a voltage using moon light, but no amps and therefore no work.
Now why would “Albo” say such a thing? According to the stats he is at least of average intelligence.
Being the Prime Minister, one would assume that he would know the situation regarding electric vehicles into the future. See http://homeenergysecrets.com/can-electric-vehicles-reduce-world-pollution/ and thirdly, can anyone charge anything for free?
Yes, … but only if someone else pays for it.
Modern solar panels (photovoltaic) typically have a shelf life of 25 years but more importantly, to charge anything overnight you need available electricity and, electrical energy collected by solar panels would generally be stored in batteries. These batteries also have a shelf life and therefore each kWh of electricity is NOT FREE. At the very best the cost per kWh just from the batteries alone would range from 17cents/kWh to 28cents/kWh (stats available here https://www.solarquotes.com.au/battery-storage/comparison-table/) but this would be on one cycle each day and you may get three cloudy days in a row, … or more, and you still haven’t factored in the cost of panels and the control gear.
A quick summary includes
- You really can’t charge your car at night using solar panels,
- At this stage there is a very limited number of electric cars that can ever be built on planet earth, and certainly not enough to replace those cars with internal combustion engines, ….
- Even if the sun was to shine at night and you could collect solar (not lunar) energy: it would not be free.
Our family’s experience since 1996 is that a kWh of electricity collected by solar panels and stored in (lead acid) batteries, in reality costs many times more than what the same amount of energy can be purchased from the grid. I go through the exercise in my book, “Home Energy Secrets – The Inside Story”, which you can borrow from your local library.
I cover the detail explaining how and why our house batteries lasted almost three times longer than most people would expect to get and why unless under ideal conditions, the average family would pay significantly more for stored power than us.
Electricity is not FREE regardless of what “Albo” says and “going green” is not as good for the environment as you may have been led to believe.
Look at the true cost of lithium batteries in the article listed above on electric cars.
But what about the cost of green electricity in purely economic terms?
Victorian’s Senator Ralph Babet asked a government minister to “name one country in the world where a higher share of solar and wind power has led to lower electricity prices”.
Ref. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?extid=CL-UNK-UNK-UNK-AN_GK0T-GK1C&v=812610789919350
Penny Wong answered the question, that is she didn’t answer the question, for the relevant minister saying “I would say to him that, ah, … it is not a highly contested position, ah, …. by most who look at the energy market in Australia, that the cheapest new form of generation is clean energy”.
So, … no country could be named where an increase in solar and wind generated electricity has “led to lower electricity prices”, and the real cost of this technology will be borne by future generations as many components of these technologies and constructions are built from toxic materials that are currently not economically viable to recycle.
Why are these people in these positions pushing through “laws” that allege to benefit, but do not benefit the people?
Why do have people who have no idea pushing a false and failing agenda in world-wide lock step?
The agenda is not less expensive electricity for all, although it purports to do so.
The opposite is clearly the case.
The agenda does not result in less damage to the Earth’s ecosystems, although it purports to do so.
The opposite is clearly the case.
These people are “educated” so they should know what they are doing is deleterious in almost every respect.
The current move to “Green Power” is more expensive and more destructive to the environment.
What then is the objective?
John Lynn