Well written article, thanks for posting.

But would fusion be such good news, after people are added?

If we do the stakeholder analysis of it, what will result, if successful fusion is ever achieved, will be takeover of all fusion plants by a force which wishes to control the world. It will do that by being the biggest, nastiest, strongest force, just like it has hi-jacked all other profit driven centralised endeavours, with outcomes like the covid vaccinations fiasco, and the current world energy and environmental problem. We are crazy if we can't see that, it seems to me.

With fusion, that force would have even greater control of the planet, and because that force would only distribute energy to the parties and parts of the world working towards maintaining its control (In other words, its allies), far from being good news, successful fusion would be very bad news, actually the continued demise of all living things on Earth, even humans.

That could not happen with solar, as by nature, solar is decentralised, its radiation is distributed all over the planet, so could not be taken control of by any centralised authority, not even within one country, in fact events in Vietnam are showing us even grids will disappear if everyone is solar powered.

So there we might see two opposing views, those who believe solar would be the best outcome, and those who believe fusion would be best.

Now imagine, if we were on the way to implementing 100% solar, and fusion was to achieve practical break-through. What would happen?

To me it looks pretty obvious the owners of fusion would immediately trash all solar development, using the financial power they would have with control of fusion.

They woulld argue "Why bother with solar when we have fusion?"

So, overnight all solar development would pretty much cease.

Now ask how that would affect developments like Geo-Engineering.

If we understand the power of solar, then we see how the power of the latter would actually repair the damage we've done to nature to date, just by using solar. Your recent article of how a plastic consuming process can enhance the efficiency of production of green hydrogen was a good example, but it isn't the only one, everywhere we look in the solar-hydrogen production chain, we see similar beneficial examples of "killing two birds with one stone". Those are not by accident, they are a product of using a remote natural energy source which is off-planet (The only one), vs using artificial centralised resources on planet.

Geo-Engineering would put a permanent irreversible end to any chance of seeing the planetary repair benefits which we would see from 100% solar power.

It would be used to deliberately kill off any utility of existing solar installations.

After that, we would be depending on the owners of fusion to decide which things should be fixed and which should be allowed to die off, as they would be in control of the life or death of all things. Choosing which things are to die is a fatal decision, we can't choose which things will live or die, all must be allowed to live, for anything to life. They can't choose for all to live, otherwise what would be the point of having control? So they would be assuring our extinction, just on a longer timescale than it might have happened with no solutions.

If you think that couldn't happen, look at the world bank. Which projects are they backing? Why not all? How would they even know all?

Further, look what happens after Geo-Engineering. Earth's reflectivity is increased, therefore solar pressure is deliberately increased with no changes to any other forces.

That means change of Earth's trajectory outwards, away from the sun.

So we would see Earth's orbit around the sun broken in only a few years, irreversibly.

I've already seen attempts to try to argue that this would not happen, by folks sympathetic to centralised power (Investors).

They do not have the intelligence or experience to know that what I've pointed out is hard fact, we have the tools and technology to model things like this. In addition, If we ourselves have experience of creating those tools, we know ourselves what the results are. Put it to anyone who has modeled orbital trajectories, as needed for control of satellites, and they will tell the same story, any change in solar pressure will result in change of trajectory.

This would consilidate the power of those who couldn't see this coming, in control of Earth. They would not be the cleverest, only the most brutal, in possesion of ultimate control, maintaining their control by pure brutality of a now darkened, wandering planet, populated only by unfortunate humans, slaves of the controlling elite.

Now consider the effects on reflectivity of going solar.

There would be no significant change in overall reflectivity by solar, as solar panels would be carrying out a similar function to plants, absorbing photons, with coverage needed to power humanity being still only a small fraction of Earth.

But there would be a motor effect due to the difference in appetite for photons, between the two sides of the surface of Earth exposed to the sun at any time, probably much greater than that of the biomass of nature alone, but in any case biomass would increase from the beneficial repair effects of using solar as mentiond earlier.

By that, we would see the current trend of inserting leap seconds every year reduced. We would even be able to conrol the rate of rotation of Earth by that means, balancing Biomass with solar farms to obtain near perfect synchronicity of the rotation of Earth, with the period of our orbit around the sun.

If we are clever, we should see these things, and be doing everything we can to get solar implemented with no further delay or distractions like fusion, it seems to me.

I think you know that the detrimental effects of pollution are not linearly related to the pollution, it is an exponential, including the effect on human health.

This is the real limit to how much fossil resources we can use, it has nothing to do with who owns most. We, and all life on Earth are already dying from it. Every attempt to predict these effects falls miserably short, it is a hyperobject, which we should see now will finish us within ony a few more years.

What we are seeing in the economy, and with wars, is a direct manifestation of the depletion of energy.

Life itself, is energy.

Given there is still no fusion, there is no way we will get to 2050 without implementation of solar, and with no fusion either.

Maybe you'll understand this, and write some articles about that.

With 54K followers, compared with my less than 1K, your stories would make a much bigger impact than mine, I think.

But are you prepared to speak about things centralised power doesn't want you to?

I don't know, let's see :)