Topic: Energy Crisis 2.0 in the New World Order era - page 6. (Read 2734 times)

Until now, creating an artificial sun will not be the main solution for energy, which is running low. When an artificial sun is created, it will be like a nuclear bomb that can destroy humanity. Do you know the element called "Xenon"? Xenon can be found only on Mars in very large quantities, whereas in our world, Xenon will only be created when a nuclear explosion occurs. Imagine if this artificial sun would explode and destroy life on earth. Sometimes humans are too aggressive to not think about the very dangerous impacts that are very threatening human life on earth.

"Transitional technologies" between today's energy production schemes can be considered alternative, renewable energy sources - solar, wind, thermal, tidal, .... Moreover, they may be acceptable for countries that simply do not have the funds to purchase a thermonuclear reactor or purchase imported electricity. And yes - the industrial operation of thermonuclear stations is not yet a year or even 5. But .. progress is being made, perhaps in the coming years, due to experimental installations, AI, new types of computing systems, we will get an acceleration in the implementation of industrial installations, and this will take not 30-50 years, but a shorter period

Scientists around the world are working to develop "artificial suns" - devices that generate energy by heating hydrogen atoms to temperatures above 100 million degrees Celsius and holding them long enough for them to fuse to form heavier atoms. A similar process occurs inside our sun, combining hydrogen atoms and releasing energy, light and heat.

China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) said it has reached a major milestone in its quest to create an artificial sun powered by nuclear fusion, generating a plasma current of more than 1 million amps for the first time.

However, the challenge is to control this process so that the reactor does not explode when replicating the process on Earth. China is also cooperating with the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, the world's largest fusion reactor, which is being built in France jointly by the European Union, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States.

I remember that the predictions of the famous Bulgarian soothsayer Vanga said that we would be able to launch several of these “artificial suns” in low orbit and they would evenly illuminate our planet around the clock, since, like the sun, this reaction releases light and heat. These will be balls with a diameter of approximately six meters. But after some time, two of them will collide in the sky. However, all the same, this will be the greatest progress in the field of providing people with clean and inexhaustible energy.

Just trust the motive. It's a politic every nation has different view about what is going on.
Even Nato won't back down when their country need more gas, oil and soon

I think they know about that but there is some issue that we don't know especially economy cost to build renewable energy and everything need time to change.
I think we still has more than 30 years to survive energy crisis

Yes, indeed, the use of thermonuclear fusion in the energy sector may become a turning point in assessing the safety of nuclear energy. Recently, many countries have begun to abandon nuclear power plants precisely because of problems with their safety during periods of increased seismological activity and other climatic anomalies, as well as an increase in the frequency of man-made disasters, including at nuclear power plants.

Along with improving technologies for using renewable energy sources, humanity can solve the problem of energy shortages and finally get rid of the use of fossil fuels, which pollute our planet and lead to drastic negative climate change.

The changing world order reflects a deeper reality – the constant evolution of nations, their economies, political structures, and social fabrics. As technology leaps forward, economies boom and bust, and populations shift like desert sands, so too does the balance of power on the global stage. Witnessing the rise of new powerhouses, like China and India, challenging the established hegemony of the West, is not a sign of weakness, but a testament to the dynamism and adaptability of the international system.

I think that the change of world order is a positive process. Because, a multipolar world encourages innovation and creativity. When no single power holds dominance, diverse perspectives and solutions are brought to the forefront, leading to breakthroughs in fields such as technology, science, and governance. This cross-pollination of ideas fosters a more vibrant and dynamic global environment. And bitcoin does the same thing for the monetary system.

All news feeds are abuzz with the news: "On December 1, the world's largest experimental fusion reactor was launched in Japan. At this point, scientists believe that despite the early stage of development of fusion energy technology, it could very well be a future source of unlimited energy for Earth's inhabitants.

According to ScienceAlert, fusion differs from nuclear fission, which is used in today's nuclear power plants, in that it involves fusing the nuclei of two atoms together rather than splitting the nucleus of a single atom. This process, known as thermonuclear fusion, occurs in the cores of all ordinary stars and ensures their existence. Unlike nuclear fission, fusion poses no risk of catastrophic nuclear power plant failures and generates far less radioactive waste."

Yes, experimental, but - working. It will be used to test technologies for commercial operation. Yes - industrial reactors will not appear tomorrow, but in the perspective of 10-15 years, it is already likely.  So we are highly likely to be in the era of low-cost and mass energy, which will replace most of the needs previously covered by fossil hydrocarbons

The only part I don't agree with is the "soon" part. We definitely have to find a replacement for the finite amount of fossil fuels on earth but it is slow and expensive, not to mention with the way consumption is increasing, the clean replacements are not going to be enough in the near future.

Renewable energy sources can and, most importantly, should replace current fossil energy sources. Without this, humanity will no longer survive, since the use of oil, coal and gas as energy sources and in internal combustion engines leads to drastic climate change and this process threatens to soon become uncontrollable.

At the same time, the technology of alternative energy sources continues to improve and become cheaper. Surely their use will soon become simple and cheap, and thus we will be able to solve most of our current energy problems.

Regarding Petroleum Renewables and Energy Outlook.
The energy component of the oil market is conditionally fuel for solutions using internal combustion engines in one form or another.
The process of abandoning internal combustion engines is already gaining momentum. And this is reflected in the share of global oil production that goes to the production of such fuel.

At the same time, it is foolish to deny that if we are talking about hydrocarbons, the picture is not so rosy.
For example - cogeneration plants, thermal power plants, they operate on fossil carbonaceous fuels (coal, fuel oil, ....).
The second not very positive example is the chemical industry. Most of the world around us is made up of plastics, paints .varnishes, glues, .... And these are mostly oil/gas derivatives.
A third example is industrial facilities, like metallurgical plants, which mostly consume coking coal and other carbon mixtures.

If we go back to oil - about 55% (10 years ago it was about 65%) of oil is used for fuel production, for internal combustion engines (in one form or another), and there is a downward trend. The chemical industry consumes up to 25% of oil. The non-energy sector still consumes about 11% (bitumen, oils, etc.)

Therefore, it is likely that in the coming decades there will be a marked decrease in the share of oil for the production of fuel for internal combustion engines, but it is unlikely that the need of the chemical industry will decrease.

I think it would be a good idea to field a team of experts who understand renewable energy governance by evaluating the potential of renewable energy resources available in the region. If indeed the above is not helpful and is considered inadequate, then it can be concluded that other steps and efforts must be taken.

Sadly it can not.
Because for starters the renewable energies you named can not replace fossil fuels in a lot of products we are using. You see gas, oil and their products are used in a lot more than to produce electricity.
Additionally building the infrastructure to use renewable energies is difficult and in certain places impossible. Not to mention that in certain cases (eg. nuclear power and electric cars) majority of countries need to import both the technology and the fuel (nuclear fuel and lithium batteries) which means another form of "energy" crisis.

That is the hardest thing, you may not trust the information given by the governments, and to be fair you wouldn't be wrong, they do lie a lot and that is understandable. However, what do you trust then? Yourself? Some youtube? Some guy on twitter? That means, you may not have the correct information at all, governments in every part of the world will lie, that is what governments do, but not like anyone else has the right correct data neither, which makes this situation even harder. Energy crisis could be solved in every nation, just create self sufficient ones, solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, and anything else you can find, these are all stuff that you can do to cover energy need of a nation without being depending any other nation, its as simple as that.

If we do not generally trust official sources from different countries, but rely on “intelligence” that was somehow leaked to social networks or the press, then we will go very far in our reasoning. If intelligence information appears in the media, it means that it was thrown there for some purpose and it does not always correspond to reality.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine note that the Russians at the front receive three times more armored vehicles and other weapons than the Armed Forces of Ukraine receive from all their partners. In addition, such military equipment often comes from old models due to the fact that the countries that supply Ukraine with this equipment take advantage of this opportunity to modernize their armed forces. But even such outdated technology, as a rule, is superior to Russian models.

These aren't militia or militant groups. These are part and parcel of these countries. For example Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and also part of the armed forces of Lebanon. Just like how US has army, marine corps, navy, etc.
Same with Yemen, Ansarollah is part and parcel of Yemen and its government. It is not just Houthis by the way, Houthis are only a portion of the Ansarollah.

That's like saying Zbroini syly Ukrayiny is an excuse to show Russians invasion of Ukraine as a novel cause.
Armed forces are there to protect people and fight against invaders.

It is interesting to point out that all these 3 movements were formed after their respective countries were invaded by foreign forces and most of their soil were occupied since their "old armies" were useless against invaders. They were formed to defend their homes and take back their soil.

P.S. It is even more interesting to point out that Hamas is like the democratically elected government as they've won the election for the Palestinian Legislative Council by the majority vote and have the most number of seats in the PLC.

Yes you are right. What Israel is doing is committing war crimes and the West is also involved in it by supporting Israel directly. This genocide they are conducting is preplanned as many analysts said because they really know about a possible attack by hamas and they have done nothing so that they have an excuse to do ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip. Syria and lebanon are the closest to the conflict but i don't think they will join the cause directly instead they will do a proxy counter through hizbullah, huthi and other militant groups in that region.


Hamas is a excuse to show Israel's genocide as a novel cause.

Generally speaking any tensions in a energy rich region affects the prices as we've already seen it in the market that it caused "volatility". Luckily the conflict was kept inside the occupied Palestine and it did not enter next phase to have the biggest impact on the price.

The next phase (that fortunately didn't happen) would have been the conflict region growing in size and specifically reaching the seas (Red Sea and the Persian Gulf) which would have shot the energy price to the moon.
Basically ever since the commandoes of armed forces of Yemen seized the Israeli ship that was sailing under the protection of US navy and US did not dare respond, it changed the face of the conflict. In fact it was the last straw that led to the cease fire planned to start tomorrow 10 AM.

It depends on what "Arab countries" you are talking about. If it is the occupied colonies like Saudi Arabia, nobody expected them to do anything other than what US orders. Otherwise Lebanon and Syria as the closest ones and Yemen as the farthest one have been directly involved.

And at the heart of it, this war is not geopolitical. It is crime against humanity since it is categorized as ethnic cleansing or a genocide.

To be clear this is not a war between Hamas and Israel, it is a genocide committed by the Zionist regime against the people of Palestine.

Israel or palestine none of these countries is an oil producer in the world. How will their conflict affect the oil price if other arab countries do not join the war? This new war front in the middle east is geopolitical, and there are small chances that other arab countries will join the war directly to protect hamas or the people of Gaza. What you are trying to draw doesn't make sense because Hamas and Israel have been fighting for a long time. The death of hamas leader is not something new. This is an event that happens frequently. If you want to conclude who's fault it is, you will just start a long debt because the situation becomes fishy due to the propaganda war conducted by both iran and israel.

Great title op! Sounded like something straight out of a Star Wars movie. Anyway, I don't really know a lot about global economies, but I can tell that the Russia-Ukraine war is the primary reason for the energy crisis 2.0 after reading some posts.

Both countries lost a lot from this war, but they gained a lot too clearly which makes me wonder if it will ever truly end later on.

The propaganda and mouthpieces you shared from Russia, Ukraine, US, etc. are all repeating the official statements not the actual total value. The official statements also only include the total value they needed to take out of their budgets.
But if you follow open source intelligence sources (easily found on the internet) there are a lot of solid proof of the actual amount that is being sent to Ukraine. Some of which is also mentioned in the news as some article that you'd normally skip and won't be counted in statistics.
For example what the American mouthpiece NYT says here is a tiny portion of a couple of billion dollars worth of weapons and ammunition (a lot more than just some shells) being sent to Ukraine which is not counted in any statistics they report as total.

As for the time frame, again just check the news. For example last year Pentagon stated that there are 8-10 flights a day sending arms to Ukraine. These days sometimes that amount is barely any shipments in a week. Even the recent statements by EU politicians says that they can no longer provide aid to Ukraine in the promised timeframes and now it would take months before they can send certain things like shells for example. Like Germany that is promising delivery in 4-5 months from now!!!