Topic: Energy Crisis 2.0 in the New World Order era - page 2. (Read 2608 times)

The world has gone through many global oil crises till date and I believe you are asking about the current oil crisis. Oil shortages are caused by rising oil prices, which are often accompanied by reduced oil supplies. As oil provides the leading energy resource for highly developed industrialized economies, an oil crisis could threaten political and economic power in the global economy.

Europe has been pushing to become a much greener continent. They are advocating for the use of renewable energy in different fields. If we do not generate energy as fossil fuels run out, all global trade will come to a halt. It has been said that fossil fuel might run out at year 2060 so you can see why most countries are aiming now to become more environmentally sustainable.

But why is it still not effective? Well, we have become too dependent on fossil fuels and a lot of our processes can’t be done without great amounts of energy which renewable energy struggles to do so.

Since renewable energy come and go depending on weather conditions, it’s hard to store said energy. It is a regret that we have not yet found the absolute cure for this but I hope not only Europe but the whole world pushes for a green world.

The current energy crisis is a very mild one in comparison to the one in the 70's. If memory serves at that time the oil price went from about $3-$4 all the way up to $12-$15. By comparison the price has to go up to above $200.

Apart from price, the shortage was also a lot more severe. Arabs as the biggest energy suppliers cut the supply to the West. However, today these Arab dictators are in a much worse situation and owe their remaining in power to the Western colonizers. If they were to cut the supply, they would be toppled very quickly and very easily. So they may reduce their production since they can't face the Eastern hegemonies but they will never cut it entirely because they also can't go against their bosses' wishes!

I have heard a lot of stories about the energy crisis in the current era because of the high dependence on fossil materials which until now has been difficult to overcome because of long-standing use. The solution already exists but has not been effective until now. The energy crisis is of an unprecedented severity and Europe is The center of this crisis is the high demand for exports which continues to increase. The current energy crisis is much bigger than the oil shock in 1970 with the emergence of many environmentally friendly technologies. It is hoped that in the future it will be even better and solve current problems.

The American company RocketStar has already announced the creation of a new ion engine that includes thermonuclear fusion. The new engine will be used in missions to orbit later this year and uses water as fuel. But this nuclear fusion is different from the process of releasing huge amounts of energy through the fusion of hydrogen into helium, which occurs on the Sun.

RocketStar uses its version of neutronless fusion in its FireStar Drive engine. This is a pulsed plasma engine with advanced thermonuclear fusion technology, which uses water mixed with boron as fuel.

The operating principle of the engine is as follows: when a collision of water molecules and boron atoms occurs, the former disintegrate and protons are released at high speed. The protons then collide with boron atoms and fuse to form the highly unstable molecule carbon-12. It decays almost immediately into alpha particles and a beryllium nucleus, which in turn quickly decays into more alpha particles. After this, energy is released, which increases thrust by 50%.
It is predicted that with the help of such an engine it will be possible to travel to other stars.

https://focus.ua/technologies/636022-sozdan-kosmicheskiy-dvigatel-na-termoyadernom-sinteze-on-uzhe-gotov-k-poletu-foto

What Blackrock proposes, even taking into account the fact that you have exaggerated the picture too much, is still more acceptable for Ukraine than being swallowed up by the Russian horde, where the people of Ukraine will simply be physically destroyed. Of course, any foreign commercial company will offer its services for the restoration of Ukraine on favorable terms. But in Ukraine, even taking into account global warming, the climate will be quite comfortable for living, there are fertile lands rich in black soil, a well-developed industry, educated and hard-working people. Therefore, there should be many mutually beneficial proposals and Ukraine will be able to choose the best of them. It is more important here that officials in the Ukrainian government do not abuse their powers for personal gain.

you think blackrock is organising giving ukraine funding NOW (to help end the war) and blackrock is going to receive land to rebuild... housing of the displaced!!? to give back to the citizens that got displaced!!?... um no, just no

again this is what blackrock will actually do in the eastern ukraine reason when peace occurs

notice the lack of charity/residential/restoring civilian livelihood wording
notice how they say about large investments of energy security agriculture logistics medicine and IT

average joe family farmer is not going to get his farm back after having all land mines and debris removed and re-toiled ready for family to return and farm.. instead blackrock will take the land as thanks for funding the war effort. and blackrock will pass that to big agri to run the farms
(ukraine pushed back at first on this but gave in later)

average displaced citizen isnt going to get their small home/cottage rebuilt so they can move back home for free as compensation for their displacement
instead blackrock wants to make "smart cities" which will be different. yes they can offer an apartment of a skyscraper or apartment block and give them jobs in the smart city. but those people will end up paying rent/needing a mortgage. to buy it from blackrock
ukraine government will have to decide how these rents/mortgages will be subsidised to pay blackrock for those that suffered and returned.. but generally most apartments will be filled with new workers with skills/talents fit for the smart cities

(its the same game as the border disputes/guerilla warfare in africa over the last 50 years that displaced many.. now for instance even ethiopia is seeing its has developed many cities even when showing world wide tv appeals for charity..  the displaced are 3 generations deep still displaced, whilst skilled/talented people from multiple countries have moved into the recently built cities)

---

in all the wars/atrocities of the last 100 years. how many stories have you heard of the asylum seekers finding safe harbour in other countries due to being displaced, later speak of their life story where they went back to their homeland and had a new house waiting for them or compensation that set them up for life.. none. you only hear how they might get like 1 years worth of rent to start them up in the new country they found safe harbour in.

blackrock(and many companies before it that have gained via wars), are going to build for their benefit, not the displaced citizens benefit
so expect new smart cities and land used to generate electric to feed the rest of europe and electric cabled neighbouring countries/regions

1. Yes, symbiosis in economics and energy, with today's technologies, is a very good way of development!

2. Regarding Blackrock’s plans - yes, I know that, first of all, these are INVESTMENT projects, mutually beneficial to both parties. Restoring civilian infrastructure, including the construction of houses and entire cities destroyed by Russian terrorists, will be a concomitant project with the construction of infrastructure facilities, and this is logical!

3. I once read that in order to COMPLETELY supply Europe with electricity, theoretically in the Sahara it is possible to build a mega solar farm on the territory belonging to Algeria, Libya, and Egypt. I think the implementation of a similar project is a matter of time...

the UK can do tidal and wind. but that also is battery charged energy to store excess to use when the water is calm and the wind is low. so yes aliances with neighbouring countries is in the plan too.. selling when in excess. and buying when in demand.

as for the ukrainian situation.. blackrock is investing in what they call "aiding the future rebuild of eastern ukraine".. and yes that is going to be power production.. not just house building

https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/prezident-proviv-zustrich-iz-kerivnictvom-najbilshoyi-u-svit-82725
none of that announcement says things like "we want blackrock to rebuild only our citizens bombed houses

other things like
https://claverton-energy.com/prospects-for-trans-atlantic-undersea-power-transmission.html (canada to iceland to UK/europe)

https://balkangreenenergynews.com/several-undersea-power-cables-about-to-connect-europe-with-africa/

I have been to both Britain and Scotland. Indeed, the climate is harsh, and the geographical position affects it - both the more “northern position” and the surrounding water, which also affects the climate.

And of course I agree that, for example, solar power plants are not the best option. But.. A large coastal zone - as for me it is possible to use, for example, wind generators, tidal stations, wave stations,...
It seems to me that in the modern world, when we understand that fossil resources (now we are talking about energy resources) have limited easily extracted reserves, and have recently been used for economic terrorism, it is worth making efforts to build alternative energy and industry.

An alternative way is to build stable alliances that can build symbiotic economic projects within the framework of mutually beneficial cooperation. For example, Great Britain can invest (after the liberation of Urkiana from the Kremlin occupiers) money in the construction of, for example, a powerful solar farm in the Zaporozhye region (southern Ukraine, a convenient territory for such projects). Ukraine receives investments, jobs, taxes, Great Britain receives cheap electricity. Everyone benefits, everyone is happy.

what i observed, from the UK although we produce our own oil/fission energy that enters our country domestically, we were slaves to the US controlled international market, even for our own supplies to ourselves.. so when the russia/ukraine stuff occurred. it did affect our own domestic prices of energy..* our country even had to hand out social security 'energy/living cost' payments of £300($380) 3 times a year

i would actually prefer a system that is less controlled by one central US market. where if we make our own energy we get to price it to ourselves at our own costs. and any excess we dont need we could set our own prices on the international market

because the UK is in the north and smaller land mass compared to say spain france, our position of solar potential is not as much as spain, nor as early in the day as france. so when we become reliant on solar and other renewables in a couple decades. we then become more ransomed to the EU supplies for our morning coffee and bean on toast(mainly central/eastern europe to supply us with energy first thing when people wake up and use electric showers, lights and kitchen appliances to get ready on dark days of winter mornings**

*(and i say all this when living in a region that has its own nuclear power plant, which still didnt keep my bills down, when my energy is nuclear based)

**right now at nearing 4:am UK we are in complete night time. however eastern Ukraine is in complete daylight. so if they joined EU and UK had trade deal with EU we could be servant to energy imports of eastern Ukraine for energy at 4am during winter mornings


this too seeds into land fighting over the eastern ukraine land. look at the other countries like spain france that can gain early morning(dark night) energy from full daylight eastern ukraine if it was part of europe.. i know blackrock see the potential when peoples heating switches on before they get out of bed

(same goes for land disputes for using western africa for UK/EU's evening heating and household needs, though i see it more likely to be a cable running from canada to greenland to iceland to UK to import canada's excess daylight energy when uk/EU goes dark)

Observing the situation on the energy market I observe a surprising picture. After hysterical and hasty attempts of the world terrorist country to destabilize the world energy market, after huge information pressure of the whole world, and promises to freeze, immobilize, ruin.... The market adapted quickly enough ! Hysterical statements, threats, even oil and gas from the country of the terrorist stopped buying in huge volumes, having found other adequate suppliers. And - nothing happened, the world did not collapse. It is very happy that the world, even with internal contradictions, finds strength and common sense, and solves artificially created problems!

PS And thanks to the higher powers for a beautiful winter

yes they shelled kiev.. but the accuracy is not as what the kremlim had been promoting they had the capability of for many decades.
it was not pinpoint targeting but more so like throwing a bunch of stones at an ant hoping atleast one stone hit an ant

..
anyways yes getting off topic

the energy crisis was inevitable even without "climate" dues to fossil reserve depletions known about since the 1980's which lead to the gulf wars to grab control of middle eastern reserves for western utility

the new world order is not going to be a single currency super power offsetting the dollars position.. but instead a common wealth of multiple domestic currencies inter-communicating and transfering cross-border at exchange rates done on a next  gen market. whereby multiple countries of populations that far exceed US population by a factor of 10, will have more economic power combined to unbalance US position of control

Of course, Russia tried from the first days of its invasion to attack Kyiv and its central military and political organizations. Thus, it is known that in the first days of the invasion in the skies over Kiev, seven Russian military aircraft were shot down in just 11 minutes of battle, after which the Russian invaders became more cautious.
https://www.unian.net/war/zenitchik-rasskazal-kak-v-nachale-voyny-oboronyali-nebo-nad-kievom-novosti-kieva-11928549.html

Russia has also shelled the city of Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, as well as military installations throughout Ukraine, since the early days of its invasion. Explosions were recorded in different parts of Kyiv, but in the central part, where the central authorities were located, there were practically no explosions. Most likely, Ukrainian air defense worked well there, which did not yet have the ability to effectively cover the sky over all of Kiev. But in response to a corresponding question, the Kremlin then said that they were not shelling the buildings of the central authorities of Kyiv because there was someone to sign the surrender of Ukraine.
In any case, later Putin’s army tried to destroy the central part of Kyiv, even using their new “dagger” missiles, but by that time Kyiv was under relatively reliable air defense protection. But rocket attacks on Kyiv and drone attacks have continued for the third year.

As for military facilities, the command of the Ukrainian Armed Forces secretly moved equipment, primarily aircraft, to alternate deployment sites before the attack, and this made it possible to preserve the bulk of aviation and other military equipment of Ukraine. Because of this, in the first months of a large-scale war, the Russians suffered staggering losses, forcing the aggressor army to withdraw its troops from central and northern Ukraine.

Man we're going waaaaaaay off topic here

Superpowers like Russia and US (and by extension NATO) have weak militaries with fancy equipment. In my opinion there are 3 main reasons for it:

First and foremost is that they have not been in any actual wars for decades (most of them after WW2) and that has made them soft. Even US regime that has spent all its time in wars hasn't been fighting "actual" wars. For example if you check all the countries they've invaded in the past 3-4 decades, they either had no military at all (eg. Afghanistan) or were already disarmed and their military, government, etc. had fallen apart (eg. Iraq, Libya, Syria, ...).

Second reason is after they built their nukes, they thought they are protected so they mostly stopped developing their armed forces technologically. I'm not saying there hasn't been any development, but there weren't any where it counted. I believe they call it "conventional warfare with conventional weapons".

And finally the development they pursued was mostly a stupid competition between themselves. For example US built F35, Russia built Su57. US built aircraft carriers, Russia built aircraft carriers. This is why for instance when US regime spends hundreds of billions of dollars and almost 3 decades in research and development of the most advanced stealth aircraft (project called "The Beast") it turns out so pathetic that the moment it gets close to the borders of a much more technologically advanced country called Iran, it is not only detected very easily but also hacked into, taken control of, landed safely and then decrypted, reverse engineered and mass produced in a short time!

There is little ingenuity in warfare among these so called "super powers"... this is why they keep losing their wars in the long run.

Your view of warfare is very far from reality, it's mostly something you see in Holywood.

Funny thing is that those idiots in Washington think like this too. Which is why they spent $12 trillion in West Asia in about 20 years and couldn't achieve any of their goals. We already saw how pathetically they escaped Afghanistan leaving behind $100 billion worth of weapons and ammunition for the cavemen called Taliban.
Things aren't significantly different for Moscow. In fact one of the first things I said when Russia invaded Ukraine was that Ukraine is Russia's Afghanistan.

isnt it funny how russia has for decades said it has the best military and military inteliagence on the planet, on its path to being recognised as a superpower..
yet.. their actions of the last couple years do not live upto the catastrophic prophecy russia have been promoting they are capable of

EG playing devils advocate, if i was russia i would have(based on their promotions) used their so called precision missiles to in unison take out precision strikes on all ukrainian political buildings and military bases and void ukraine of any military response in one day

instead russia have been hitting random non important targets like residential apartment blocks and not precision striking all the meaningful targets

russia over the last couple years revealed they dont actually have the military power they promoted they had.

...
that said all countries say they do too.. but when they pretend they can see an incoming missile/nuke on their sophisticated radars they pretend to have, how come they can never locate missing 747 planes(rhetorical)

Just because they've capped their aid to 100-300 km range, it doesn't mean a tiny bit higher range is categorized as "long range".
Generally speaking for cruise missiles 300-500 km range is still categorized as short range and barely enters the medium range category. Long range for cruise missiles starts from 1000 km range and above.

BTW something as weak as Taurus with its subsonic speed with a semi-light warhead and very weak accuracy is not helpful at all. There is a reasons the number of Taurus missiles produced and exported is extremely low.
If you want to use an example, at least use something decent. Even the shitty US made Tomahawk missiles with their high failure rate (1 out of 4 fails!) is much better than Taurus and is categorized as long-range for real (1700 km).

Russia is not at war with the entire Western world. Yes, European countries, the USA and some others provide financial and military assistance to Ukraine. But military aid is too selective. Until now, the allies are afraid to transfer long-range missiles to Ukraine, such as the German TAURUS with a range of 500 kilometers, as well as other long-range missiles. Only those missiles that have a short firing range are transferred to the anti-aircraft missile systems supplied to Ukraine. If Russia had fought against the entire Western world, Ukraine would have already had the opportunity to destroy the Crimean Bridge, through which Russian troops are constantly supplied on the southern front, and without it, the front from the Crimean Bridge would have long since collapsed for the invaders.

In addition, Ukraine attacks military and dual-use targets on Russian territory mainly only with Ukrainian-made drones, which it is still modernizing. One can only imagine what would be happening now on Russian territory if at least the same number of missiles and shells that Russia is now launching into Ukraine had exploded there.

Ukraine also still does not have Western aviation or Western naval forces. If Russia had really collided militarily with the Western world, the war would have ended long ago, but not in Russia’s favor.

is growing??

china de-dollarised its risk by selling them debt bonds..
(from 2000-2011 china gained upto $1.3trill of US bonds... in the last 2 years (2021-23) china dropped that down by half to ~$750b as of november 2023)

side note about the war in ukraine/russia
for every US missile donated to ukraines defence, .. ukraine gives an equal value amount of hectares of land to private investors of blackrock

..
as for what china wanted to then invest that spare $750b(of the $1.3b that was locked into bonds) in, ofcourse they bought gold.. but that doesnt mean they are going to hoard it forever, they are already talking about how to offload it into projects like real estate and silk road and collaboration with the middle easts smart cities projects

Well as I've always said, I don't believe the New World Order has any "leading super power". There will only be "power blocs". China may try to become US 2.0 (a unipolar world) after this New World Order (new new world order LOL) somewhere in 2050 maybe, but for now China alone can not even survive let alone want to be the solo power.

As for the weasel act and its consequences, you are on point although I wouldn't say "defeat" but it is putting pressure on others and I'd say the opposite could happen meaning if China keeps it up it could end up with the defeat of China itself. Keep in mind that in US National Security Strategy, China is considered enemy number one.
To keep this post short I won't get into the details of how with a simple shift US could do to China what they did to USSR, we can discuss it further if anyone is interested.

We're also already seeing this in BRICS where more members are complaining about how irresponsible China is acting specially in preventing the BRICS currency and SWIFT replacement from being introduced.

For the time being (possibly starting from 50's and specially during Cold War between US and USSR) this weasel strategy is the most beneficial for them so they'll keep it up. Just look what they're doing to their enemies in the West to see the benefits!
For example the deindustrialization of Europe (the competition in the markets), both US and Europe dependence on China that is growing every year! One of the biggest bag holders of US national debt is China, the biggest US/EU trade partner is China, the biggest US/EU trade deficit is with China and is growing, and a lot more.

Even in armed conflict the weasel act is helping China. Every bullet US shoots in another direction is a win for China.
This is getting so bad that even the thinktanks in Washington are raising alarms. The most recent one I read was about the $2 million dollar defensive missiles that US Navy has an extremely short supply of that are being wasted in the Red Sea trying to shoot down $20k drones and failing all to support genocide of Palestinians. Meanwhile the budget situation in US is so bad that Biden has only been capable of dedicating a tiny amount of money for such a small number of them that would only be enough for a couple of destroyers and not even fill their supplies they were building them for the possible future Taiwan invasion and any possible face off with China in the sea and they've already run out of these missiles...