AI creativity challenge

 You may have noticed I have started exploring the latest AI tools. I have used it to create poetry (see AI poetry shoot out ) and challenged the tools themselves to assess the benefits of AI (see 10 ways where AI will make a contribution) and their threat (see 10 Ways AI can be a threat to humanity).

Today I decided to evaluate AI's creativity. The challenge was to produce a visual representation of certain proverbs. In the first test, I simply asked Microsoft's Copilot to "Please provide an image to represent the proverb " text of proverb".  I ran the test on 5 well-known proverbs.

In the second test, I described the image that I thought would represent each of the proverbs I had used in the first test. However the images Copilot produced in response to my descriptions did not match what I had intended. And in virtually all the cases, despite multiple attempts, I could not get the image I conceived. In the end I gave up and accepted what I thought was the best. 

Here are the results of the first test. I won't name the proverbs here, to let you puzzle them out. 

Proverb 1 Copilot Conceived

Proverb 2 Copilot Conceived

Proverb 3 Copilot Conceived

Proverb 4 Copilot Conceived

Proverb 5 Copilot Conceived

And here are the images for the second test.

Proverb 1 -My conception

Proverb 2 My Conception

Proverb 3 My conception

Proverb 4 My Conception

Proverb 5 My conception

I am sure you will guess them, but I will post the answers  in a few days.

Net Zero is NOT achievable without nuclear

Today, Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition in Australia, made a bold declaration. The Liberal National Party (LNP) has unveiled its policy for Australia’s energy transition, advocating nuclear energy as the primary source of carbon-free baseload electricity. Dutton has issued a challenge, setting the stage for a direct clash with the Labor government’s strategy, which focuses solely on renewable energy.

Labor, in its quest to position Australia as a renewable energy titan, has initiated a deluge of renewable energy projects. The country is inundated with daily announcements of colossal wind farms, sometimes offshore, or encroaching upon prime agricultural land, the destruction of pristine environments, or the conversion of farmland for new transmission lines or solar farms. There are also new targets for electric vehicle (EV) sales and funding for solar panel manufacturing, despite the market being saturated with Chinese-made panels.

Chris Bowen has been appointed by the Labor government to spearhead this transition. His efforts have been nothing short of formidable. Bowen is unwavering in his mission, sparing no exaggeration and showing little concern for factual precision. He proclaims Australia as a renewable energy colossus, denounces nuclear as the costliest and riskiest technology, asserts that net zero is attainable without baseload power sources, and suggests that batteries can bridge the energy gap. Moreover, he promises to lower electricity costs, maintain power supply, and bolster industry growth.

This stance persists against a backdrop of rising electricity prices, the gradual shutdown of coal-fired power plants, and load shedding during peak energy demand. Consumers and businesses are incentivized to reduce consumption during these periods to keep the power grid stable—well, sort of.

No one, not even Bowen, finds the current state of affairs satisfactory. Yet, Bowen insists this is merely a transitional phase and that ‘she’ll be right.’

Amidst this turmoil, Peter Dutton has boldly proclaimed that the emperor has no clothes. He has criticized Labor’s target of a 43% emissions reduction by 2030 as unrealistic and has prioritized the cost of living over the renewable energy transition. Dutton has also highlighted nuclear energy as the linchpin of baseload power necessary to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recognized that net zero emissions cannot be realized without nuclear power. While some, including Bowen, remain unconvinced, many believe that renewables alone are insufficient for achieving net zero.

One of the most persuasive arguments against the feasibility of renewables alone concerns resource availability. The materials required to produce the necessary minerals for solar panels and wind turbines are unlikely to be mined by 2050.

Referencing Simon Michaux’s “The Green Energy Myth,” the table below outlines the volume and types of minerals needed to meet net zero goals and the estimated years of mining required to obtain these resources. Focusing on copper alone, it would take over 250 years at current mining rates to acquire the amount needed for net zero. Evidently, achieving net zero without nuclear is an impossibility.

Ref Simon Michaux:The Green Energy Myth

Professor Simon Michaux, a leading researcher in the field of minerals within a circular economy, is currently with the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK) and formerly of the University of Queensland. Michaux aims to revolutionize the interplay between energy, minerals, and industrialization to foster sustainable material consumption in society. His recent presentation at the Navigating Nuclear symposium at UNSW, titled "Challenges and bottlenecks to the green transition", addressed these issues.

These inconvenient truths are likely to be disregarded by Mr. Bowen, but Mr. Dutton has certainly brought some compelling facts to the table. 

Climate Emergency claims debunked

 I recently came across a paper that admittedly was published some years ago in 2019, but it is well worth a review as it directly addresses many of the claims made by climate zealots.

The paper  "The True and False of Climate Change" was authored by M.Ray Thomasson and Lee C. Gerhard. 

 It covers a range of claims by climate change advocates and provides evidence to refute them. The paper is not too long and worth a read but here is a summary.

Climate change advocates' claims;-

• temperatures are higher than they have been in the last 200 years: TRUE.
• temperatures are higher than they have ever been. FALSE.   
• there are more hurricanes FALSE
• there have been more droughts: FALSE
• there have been more wet seasons: FALSE
• the strength of hurricanes has increased: FALSE
• the number of violent hurricanes has increased: FALSE
• CO2 is the major Greenhouse Gas: FALSE
• CO2 increases will drive temperatures to catastrophic levels: FALSE
• CO2 is the main driver of temperature increases: FALSE
• CO2 levels today are higher than they have ever been: FALSE
• sea level is rising: TRUE
• the rate of sea level rise is increasing: FALSE
• changes in solar irradiance can be ignored: FALSE
• we can ignore the effects of the sun: FALSE
• we can ignore sun spots: FALSE
• CO2 is a pollutant: FALSE
• Temperature and CO2 go up together: FALSE
• Models can be used to predict climate: FALSE
• the pause in temperature increases is not real.FALSE
• there is a 97% consensus that humans are causing the climate to change: FALSE

I won't reproduce all the arguments they provide but here are a couple of the diagrams supporting their case. They also provide a comprehensive list of references. 

After reading this paper it becomes very difficult to sustain the "climate emergency" mantra of many a climate zealot.  Consider the possibility that the Climate Change theory is just wrong. That there is no climate emergency. That the current warming has been a totally natural increase due to the earth coming out of a cold period due to solar cycles. That the temperature will level off and decrease as the next cold cycle kicks in. Consider the upheaval the Climate Change theory has created. Massive changes in infrastructure, the transformation of manufacturing industries, destructive mining for rare minerals for solar panels, and massive increases in the cost of living by swapping low-cost FF energy sources for expensive intermittent renewables. It could have been all for naught. A sobering thought.

Excess deaths due to vaccination

It began as a mere trickle. Actuaries noticed an uptick in deaths—deaths that didn’t align with the typical COVID profile. Funeral parlors reported increased profits, yet the demographics of these deaths didn’t correlate with COVID fatalities. Young people were suddenly dying. Subsequent studies revealed excess deaths unrelated to COVID, including a rise in cardiac arrests, particularly among athletes. There were subtle hints that vaccines might play a role. Adverse event statistics were far higher than anticipated, and embalmers discovered unusual clots. Across various regions worldwide, there emerged a correlation between vaccination rates and the surge in deaths. What started as a trickle has now become a flood. In the past week, I’ve posted several articles in On the Grapevine

And most recently Dr John Campbell has posted under the title "Proof" another study concluding that excess deaths are due to mRNA vaccination.

If this is indeed true—and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny—we, and by ‘we’ I mean the global collective, have inadvertently but negligently caused the deaths of millions of people. We compelled hundreds of millions to receive multiple doses of a novel vaccine in what can only be described as a panicked response to a new virus. In doing so, we disregarded our own pandemic management protocols, undermined our vaccine testing procedures, and compromised our democratic rights to informed decision-making. If this turns out to be accurate, it will stand as one of the greatest self-inflicted tragedies of modern times. Perhaps even more concerning is the lack of curiosity exhibited by our institutions. We urgently need transparent investigations to assess our missteps—not only to hold individuals accountable for these choices but also to prevent their recurrence.

Move over SMRs , here comes the Micro Reactor

For over 70 years, nuclear energy has been a reliable and efficient source of power. It boasts safety, cost-effectiveness, and minimal emissions. In fact, it stands as the sole scalable low-emission energy option capable of providing continuous operation 24/7. While wind and solar energy are also scalable, their intermittent nature poses challenges. Hydro energy, unfortunately, lacks scalability—it’s either available or not.

As the world grapples with the threat of catastrophic climate change, many turn to renewables like wind and solar. However, their low energy density and intermittent supply prevent them from serving as baseload power for modern societies. Intermittency necessitates backup, which typically comes from fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Although energy storage solutions are improving, they remain inefficient and costly, unable to fully address the variability of wind and solar power. After all, we can’t simply ask industries or individuals to go without energy during intermittent periods.

Nuclear energy offers a promising solution, yet inexplicably, some of the loudest voices advocating for fossil fuel elimination also push for nuclear shutdowns. Fortunately, recent developments have shifted this narrative. Factors like war, severe winters, and consumer pressure due to high energy costs have forced green groups to reconsider nuclear energy.

Enter Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These innovative designs promise reduced construction costs and implementation times, making nuclear energy more accessible worldwide.

But that’s not all. Micro nuclear reactors take miniaturization to the next level, offering power capacities of 1 to 5 MW—small enough to fit into shipping containers. Imagine the transformative impact on global energy distribution, making affordable energy widely available.

For a deeper dive, check out the video below, which provides essential background information