Energy Crisis 2.0 in the New World Order era

[DrBeer]

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.

And in my opinion, your prediction above is very likely to happen because it is very likely that the stock of raw materials will be very reduced in the future and even if it continues to be used, this will be contrary to the spirit of fighting global warming and energy policies that encourage reducing dependence on energy. fossil fuels. The need for the chemical industry is still high and this need will also remain, especially in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, agriculture and manufacturing. Now it seems that the future will require very large and relatively clean resources without producing large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. What if in the end it was uranium that was chosen for use.

As practice shows, uranium cannot be called an ideal resource. From its limited deposits and the difficulty of processing, to the high risks of its use.
Thermonuclear fusion is a more promising option. Cheaper, safer, more effective. Among the disadvantages - at the moment there are no industrial solutions, there are only experimental installations. But in recent years, really good results have been achieved, and there is a high probability that within some time the world will be able to obtain a cheap, safe and virtually unlimited source of energy.

[1714816037]

1714816037

[1714816037]

1714816037

[1714816037]

1714816037

[1714816037]

1714816037

[Argoo]

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.

And in my opinion, your prediction above is very likely to happen because it is very likely that the stock of raw materials will be very reduced in the future and even if it continues to be used, this will be contrary to the spirit of fighting global warming and energy policies that encourage reducing dependence on energy. fossil fuels. The need for the chemical industry is still high and this need will also remain, especially in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, agriculture and manufacturing. Now it seems that the future will require very large and relatively clean resources without producing large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. What if in the end it was uranium that was chosen for use.

Oil refining products are the main components that pollute the environment and create a greenhouse effect, and this causes glaciers to melt, the overall temperature to rise and the climate on the planet to change very quickly. I see that many are still discussing the advisability of moving away from the traditional use of oil as fuel for internal combustion engines. When entire countries begin to go under water, the volume of land on the planet will decrease, and in some areas of the remaining land the temperature will rise to critical levels for human habitation. Perhaps only after that they will think about this global problem. But perhaps it will be too late. After all, we are not the first civilization on this planet. They say that it was technical progress that destroyed the previous ones.

[deepblue01]

As practice shows, uranium cannot be called an ideal resource. From its limited deposits and the difficulty of processing, to the high risks of its use.
Thermonuclear fusion is a more promising option. Cheaper, safer, more effective. Among the disadvantages - at the moment there are no industrial solutions, there are only experimental installations. But in recent years, really good results have been achieved, and there is a high probability that within some time the world will be able to obtain a cheap, safe and virtually unlimited source of energy.

I remember sci-fi movies that used what looked like an artificial sun which is the source of spacecraft power.
It's name "passanger", I don't know why they didn't choose nuclear power plants as their energy source.
whatever it is called thermonuclear fusion / hydrogen fusion / artificial sun basically the same, i think the potential is huge

[DrBeer]

As practice shows, uranium cannot be called an ideal resource. From its limited deposits and the difficulty of processing, to the high risks of its use.
Thermonuclear fusion is a more promising option. Cheaper, safer, more effective. Among the disadvantages - at the moment there are no industrial solutions, there are only experimental installations. But in recent years, really good results have been achieved, and there is a high probability that within some time the world will be able to obtain a cheap, safe and virtually unlimited source of energy.

I remember sci-fi movies that used what looked like an artificial sun which is the source of spacecraft power.
It's name "passanger", I don't know why they didn't choose nuclear power plants as their energy source.
whatever it is called thermonuclear fusion / hydrogen fusion / artificial sun basically the same, i think the potential is huge

Yes, it doesn’t matter what the technology is called, the main thing is that humanity can get cheap, accessible, safe energy in unlimited quantities. And yes, I’m sure there will be several options - cold nuclear fusion, hydrogen “reactors”, and renewable energy sources - sun, wind, tidal, ... The world must move away from fossils, limited resources, which have recently been used for market manipulation and political issues.

[pooya87]

Why are we even discussing a very experimental solution that experts claim won't work at least for another 30 to 40 years? The world is moving towards that for sure but in such a long time a lot of things would change. Just look at the past 30 to 40 years! The world has changed significantly. I'd say it is perfectly possible to see another world order change in that period!

[DrBeer]

Why are we even discussing a very experimental solution that experts claim won't work at least for another 30 to 40 years? The world is moving towards that for sure but in such a long time a lot of things would change. Just look at the past 30 to 40 years! The world has changed significantly. I'd say it is perfectly possible to see another world order change in that period!

The answer is very simple - this technology, which 10-20 years ago seemed fantastic, and there was no technology on the horizon to realize it. Today, these are already WORKING experimental reactors. Taking into account the exponential growth of technologies, we can assume the appearance of industrial plants even earlier than the specified period. And in 30 years, an interesting time will come - a significant reduction in oil production due to the depletion of sources of these energy carriers. And those who are now developing this technology, who are investing in it, and developing alternative energy will be on the energy Olympus. For example, I would gladly invest in such companies today, and I recommend it to those who now have such an opportunity....

We are discussing blockchain technology, which has not yet replaced the fiat financial system, and the prospects of such a scenario are also somewhere "beyond the horizon"

[pooya87]

For example, I would gladly invest in such companies today, and I recommend it to those who now have such an opportunity....

That sounds like a very risky investment because best case scenario is that your investment would lie there idle and without any profit, there may even be losses because it takes years for them to come up with an actual working solution that can then be mass deployed at a large scale and then become profitable. The first states would take decades, that's decades without seeing any profit.

Not to mention that with worsening global situation when all resources are going to the weapons manufacturers as NATO members have depleted most of their storages, there is not much room left for R&D into fixing energy problems! That further extends the end date of such technological breakthroughs.

We are discussing blockchain technology, which has not yet replaced the fiat financial system, and the prospects of such a scenario are also somewhere "beyond the horizon"

That's an irrelevant example because the problems the blockchain technology is fixing aren't going anywhere but the energy crisis we are discussing in this topic will end LONG before we see a working solution for a reliable alternative energy source.

I'd say all the energy crisis cases I've discussed so far in different topics will end by the end of 2024 if what they say about US getting ready for a "strategic defeat" is correct.

[DrBeer]

For example, I would gladly invest in such companies today, and I recommend it to those who now have such an opportunity....

That sounds like a very risky investment because best case scenario is that your investment would lie there idle and without any profit, there may even be losses because it takes years for them to come up with an actual working solution that can then be mass deployed at a large scale and then become profitable. The first states would take decades, that's decades without seeing any profit.

Not to mention that with worsening global situation when all resources are going to the weapons manufacturers as NATO members have depleted most of their storages, there is not much room left for R&D into fixing energy problems! That further extends the end date of such technological breakthroughs.

We are discussing blockchain technology, which has not yet replaced the fiat financial system, and the prospects of such a scenario are also somewhere "beyond the horizon"

That's an irrelevant example because the problems the blockchain technology is fixing aren't going anywhere but the energy crisis we are discussing in this topic will end LONG before we see a working solution for a reliable alternative energy source.

I'd say all the energy crisis cases I've discussed so far in different topics will end by the end of 2024 if what they say about US getting ready for a "strategic defeat" is correct.

1. By itself, it is an investment for the future. But. Let me give you a simple example - Jeff Bezos. In the 90s of the last century, he, for example, persuaded his relatives to invest in his BOOK SHOP, if I'm not mistaken, about 10,000 dollars. Now their share is about $1 billion and the "conversion" has been 20+ years.

In addition, fusion is the most promising technology today in terms of obtaining unlimited, cheap, safe energy. And yes, it won't be tomorrow.

Regarding NATO and other things - this is nonsense, sorry If backward savages have a million cobblestones, it doesn't mean that the developed west will lose to them because they don't have 2 million cobblestones ) Just compare the power of the developed world's economy and the pariah countries that are trying to destabilize the world ? ! Yes, I realize that it is cheaper and easier to shit on the world than to create something, to build a legal state, to adhere to laws.  But this does not mean that the developed world will give up and allow terrorists and scum of the world to destroy civilization!

2. About blockchain - very much on topic !  Now the real use of this technology of a fraction of a percent in the world economy. although blockchain technology is very many years old - the practical realization was in 2008, and before that many years it was developed. Total - about 20 years. And so far, apart from speculative profit, blockchain does not generate any other profit ! Cold fusion technology - also has a key role in the future world, where fossil resources that provide energy are running out and their extraction is becoming more and more expensive. Moreover, this resource is becoming an element for manipulation, blackmail, and economic terrorism. And the launch of thermonuclear industrial power generation will also bankrupt countries that try to terrorize the world at the cost of energy resources. 

[pooya87]

Regarding NATO and other things - this is nonsense, sorry If backward savages have a million cobblestones, it doesn't mean that the developed west will lose to them because they don't have 2 million cobblestones ) Just compare the power of the developed world's economy and the pariah countries that are trying to destabilize the world ? ! Yes, I realize that it is cheaper and easier to shit on the world than to create something, to build a legal state, to adhere to laws.  But this does not mean that the developed world will give up and allow terrorists and scum of the world to destroy civilization!

You can call the terrorist organization know as Israel "civilized" all you like and the dismantlement of the organization as "terrorism", but it won't change a thing. In 10 years from now, nobody would even remember these terrorists and their radical ideology known as Zionism will have to go back into hiding like the past 2000+ years since the world has seen its true face and has been waking up.
Besides, you as a Zionist should know this better than anybody else since it is prophesized in your תָּנָ״ךְ‎ specifically which is commonly known as the 8th decade curse.

And so far, apart from speculative profit, blockchain does not generate any other profit

Blockchain technology has not been about "profit making" ever. It has always been to address the centralized problem that exists in the monetary system. Maybe read the Bitcoin whitepaper some time to understand what Bitcoin was invented for!
As I said it is off-topic here because Bitcoin and blockchain technology is addressing an existing problem and are already providing a solution for it.

[serveria.com]

Regarding NATO and other things - this is nonsense, sorry If backward savages have a million cobblestones, it doesn't mean that the developed west will lose to them because they don't have 2 million cobblestones ) Just compare the power of the developed world's economy and the pariah countries that are trying to destabilize the world ? ! Yes, I realize that it is cheaper and easier to shit on the world than to create something, to build a legal state, to adhere to laws.  But this does not mean that the developed world will give up and allow terrorists and scum of the world to destroy civilization!

Meanwhile, in the real world, savages with cobblestones attacked Ukraine with some missiles. The glorious AFU, the only army in the world with 0 losses after 2 years of war, equipped with the most advanced air defence systems like Patriot, NASAMS (is being used to protect the White House), IRIS-T etc. were only able to intercept 18 missiles out of 59!

Source: https://www.facebook.com/CinCAFU/  

Cold fusion technology - also has a key role in the future world, where fossil resources that provide energy are running out and their extraction is becoming more and more expensive. Moreover, this resource is becoming an element for manipulation, blackmail, and economic terrorism. And the launch of thermonuclear industrial power generation will also bankrupt countries that try to terrorize the world at the cost of energy resources.  

Yes, you're right, there's a fair chance the US will go bankrupt at some point. But then again, why do you think the countries adopting new tech won't be the same countries, which are exporting fossil fuels now? Reminds me of EV market where Tesla were the pioneers but eventually the market will be divided between the big guys like Mercedes, Porsche, the Japs, the French etc. So, everyone who was good at building conventional cars will eventually be good at EV and nobody will remember what Tesla was in 10-20 years. We can also compare it to the mobile phone industry, where Nokia or Blackberry were big, but where are they now?  

[pooya87]

Another sign of energy crisis erupted this time in Germany as the farmers have been protesting over the past couple of weeks ever since the German government that has long run out of money has been putting more pressure on civilians to cover its rapidly increasing budget deficit.
This time the anger is about cutting the subsidy cuts for fuel usage and tax breaks that is targeting farmers.


https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-farmers-block-roads-highway-ramps-protest-subsidy-cuts-2024-01-08/

On another news, the GDL train drivers' union also went on strike from this morning nearly halting the entire German railway which they say will last for at least 3 days.
https://www.euronews.com/travel/2024/01/08/germany-rail-strikes-train-travel-disruption-to-continue-into-2024

The important question is: what's the point of $4.4 trillion GDP?...

[Funke]

The constant collapse of energy in countries have determined their economic productivity. All the powerful countries depends on power supplies for their productive economy.

Over the years energy crisis have become part of the international political economics of states. The producers of petrol and diesel power generators have seen that, the moment power supplies increases, especially in African states, sales will definitely fall .

What they do to keep sponsoring the energy crisis in Africa is by collaborating with those in the energy sector investors to keep the collapse of energy supplies and become suppliers of generators.

The solution to all this is effective governance and it is for government take the private hands out of the energy sector and manage it by the government.

[pooya87]

What they do to keep sponsoring the energy crisis in Africa is by collaborating with those in the energy sector investors to keep the collapse of energy supplies and become suppliers of generators.

Africa is a bit different since the energy of most of the region is being pillaged so there is not much left for Africans to use themselves. Not to mention that a lot of other factors is preventing Africa (that still struggles with colonizers) from developing and improving.

The solution to all this is effective governance and it is for government take the private hands out of the energy sector and manage it by the government.

That would be a start although it comes at a cost. When governments take control of the energy sector they'll have to keep the price at a somewhat fixed level to prevent crisis. That means more of their budget is going to be spent during times when prices are high (like these days) therefore they may face bigger budget deficits that would hurt the economy in a different way.

[Argoo]

Humanity, if desired, is able to overcome any energy crisis and there are many ways to produce cheap and environmentally friendly energy.

In Ukraine, for example, an ordinary schoolboy proposed a project called “Generating electricity from the atmosphere.” The inventor proposes to extract electricity from the air, or more precisely from the atmosphere using an artificial ionized cloud due to the strong electric field that will be emitted by the ionizing tower. Samuel's invention involves the extraction of not only electricity, but also water. The estimated cost of one kilowatt of energy in this case will cost approximately one cent.
At the Olympics of Geniuses, held in Oswego (New York, USA), he won bronze among two thousand young inventors from all over the world.
And how many more similar inventions can be proposed in our time of rapid development of science and technology.

Source:
https://building-tech.org/%D0%AD%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F/ukraynskyy-shkolnyk-sozdal-ustanovku-dlya-poluchenyya -elektroenergyy-yz-atmosferi---1-kylovatt-za-3-kopeyky

[pinggoki]

~

I'm not saying that the United States has no power over countries like Venezuela, but it's becoming very probable that their "power"/political stronghold is not as powerful as it was. Venezuela is talking to China as partner in economic and political matters. Perhaps that's the seed for Venezuela to later be a military partner? They're not as scared as they were in the past. Why? Because China and Russia are starting to advance militarily and politically, and their advancing faster today than during the start of the century.

It's still all talk anyway, CIA just got more sneakier and I do believe that they're not that weakened as much as any other people always say, I mean US can still do a full military deployment anywhere in the world within 24 hour period and the USD is still the most used global currency for trading and at the same time it's also still being coveted by rogue countries which only means that whatever their influence is, I think that it's still there. Also, it's worth mentioning that the talk with China and Venezuela is still a talk right? During this time before my reply, there's nothing that has happened yet right? With how bad China's real estate market is right now, I don't think that they'll be able to keep a really strong foreign relations as long as the US.

[pooya87]

schoolboy proposed a project called “Generating electricity from the atmosphere.”

Theoretical ways of producing energy have always existed from the time man found fire and will continue to exist long after fossil fuels run out. Similar to the previous case, if it is not actually producing large scale energy it is not a solution worth bringing up in an "energy crisis" topic!

US can still do a full military deployment anywhere in the world within 24 hour period

It takes roughly 6 months to do a full deployment for any war anywhere in the world for United States military. We're talking about deploying 1-2 million servicemembers and as many equipment, since that's how many it takes for any of the ongoing conflicts or tensions that could turn into one.

[Wind_FURY]

How is everyone in the topic of the New World Era? Hahaha.

I'm wrong in my topic that there will be a period of Deflation during 2023, and I believe that would have a higher probability of happening than a New World Era within ten years.

But it's always better to be ready, and HODL/own hard assets like Gold, Land, and Bitcoin. I believe which should be the actual point of these topics, not as trying to be a predictor of major changes in the world.

[franky1]

But it's always better to be ready, and HODL/own hard assets like Gold,

i wouldnt suggest buying gold right now

looking at golds all-history market. (ATH $2.075 ) today gold is($2025) in the top 97% of ATH
(remember buy low sell high, not the opposite)

when you see big gold countries selling or giving gold away to citizens. the elites are on a selling spree. they dont want to keep gold
when normal people are being told to buy gold its because those already with gold want to sell

its also worth noting normal people never get to trade gold at true spot price. many only have access to gold via shady "cash for gold" kiosks where the spread of spot vs retail price is huge and not helpful for those normal people wanting to buy/sell gold. they always get the worse deals

another hint
fuel costs have come back down to 2021 levels (unlike the june 2022 ATH of gasoline). so its becoming cheaper to mine gold again. this will play out next gold mining season when miners are throwing tonnes of gold onto the market that they mined cheaper than the previous couple years

[pooya87]

I'm wrong in my topic that there will be a period of Deflation during 2023, and I believe that would have a higher probility of happening than a New World Era within ten years.

The old World Order is already dead, there is no other choice to have a New World Order. The only thing left for discussion is how that order is going to be and which countries have how much of the "cake of power".

As for your prediction, there are a lot of "ifs" over the past 2 years. For example I've been predicting that "if interest rates come down, bitcoin price shoots up". That "if" never happened so we only had small rises.
It's the same with your Deflation Period prediction. A lot of things didn't happen that were needed to lead to that. We have had signals for both worsening and improving economic situation at the same time in the past year at least!!! So it's no longer about being right or wrong, it is about knowing all these signals and seeing which one gets stronger to be able to predict the most probable outcome.

For example take the recent Putin interview with an American mouthpiece. Many are taking it as a way to prepare the American population for the end of the NATO-Russian war. US regime desperately needs it too since they need to focus on China not have their weapons storages depleted. Specially since neither sanctions worked on Russia (IMF predicts higher GDP growth for Russia next year compared to Eurozone which is closer to zero!) nor their weapons were capable of slowing down Russian advances.
At the same time we have others like UK and some in US regime that are pushing for more war with Russia (ie. pushing Eastern Europe to fight with Russia while they stay far).

But it's always better to be ready, and HODL/own hard assets like Gold, Land, and Bitcoin. I believe which should be the actual point of these topics, not as trying to be a predictor of major changes in the world.

Well the two are linked. The major changes in the world are what's affecting these markets. "Speculating" about one helps you speculate about others.

I pointed these things out in the past like this discussion from 2022 and in a lot of my comments and other topics like this one where I post my thoughts on these major changes and their effects on the economy. You can see around the times of the first topic gold price was around $1600 ish and it kept rising as things I explained happened (eg. countries and central banks continued buying a lot of gold).
That's a 25% profit in a little more than a year in a solid market for those who used this analysis.

Today we are at a high and the rise has slowed down, so it is not the best time to start buying but also the signs I've discussed in the past haven't vanished. Countries are still amassing gold silently and the world is inching towards more conflict which would make demand for gold rise.
This means I wouldn't recommend buying more gold  right now but also I wouldn't start selling either.

P.S. I believe this is the first time I'm brining this up in here, but about the main topic I have to mention the strait of Gibraltar. Just saying... things could get intense over there... that would choke Europe's economy...
...129 days of Genocide...

[Wind_FURY]

But it's always better to be ready, and HODL/own hard assets like Gold,

i wouldnt suggest buying gold right now

looking at golds all-history market. (ATH $2.075 ) today gold is($2025) in the top 97% of ATH
(remember buy low sell high, not the opposite)

when you see big gold countries selling or giving gold away to citizens. the elites are on a selling spree. they dont want to keep gold
when normal people are being told to buy gold its because those already with gold want to sell

Are big Gold countries actually selling right now? It was merely two years ago that some Central Banks have been said to be hoarding Gold. Russia has also been said to be hoarding Gold since the Russo-Ukrainian War started.

Plus why would anyone give Gold away to the people when it's currently such a valuable commodity? ESPECIALLY NOW with these prices.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

its also worth noting normal people never get to trade gold at true spot price. many only have access to gold via shady "cash for gold" kiosks where the spread of spot vs retail price is huge and not helpful for those normal people wanting to buy/sell gold. they always get the worse deals

another hint
fuel costs have come back down to 2021 levels (unlike the june 2022 ATH of gasoline). so its becoming cheaper to mine gold again. this will play out next gold mining season when miners are throwing tonnes of gold onto the market that they mined cheaper than the previous couple years

Get the context. It's not about investment nor "trading". It's about owning a hard asset that could be used as a form of money, like Bitcoin, as a fall-back/back-up in case there's a monetary crisis.