182 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum”

  1. Yeah, it’s just weather but if you’ve ever been to Norway in January….

    Norway sees January heatwave as temperature hits 19C. “People in Rauma, Norway, have been enjoying the country’s warmest January temperatures ever recorded at 19C – with some, including the mayor, swimming in the sea.”

    2. People would rather have a warm winter than a cold one. You even say they are enjoying the warmth.

      1. Hi Jon. What you say is true.
        But the issue is just a little more complicated than that.
        For example, hundreds of millions of people live in zones subject to storm flooding (coastal and river basin). The risk from flooding to people, crops and infrastructure likes rail and ports, is increased in a warming scenario. By a lot.
        That is just one example.

        You can learn some interesting things here if you have any interest-
        https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/chokepoints-vulnerabilities-global-food-trade

      2. It appears that the problem is in part more about the speed at which warm winters arrive than warm winters per se.
        I’m less concerned about flooding as such than about the effects of fast warming on the planet’s biota and its ability to adapt.

  2. https://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=237752

    if you want to see why America is f**cked. Read this.

    Deficit spending and interest rate suppression destroy the 99%.

    Medical Monopolies + Social Security will consume all tax revenues by 2024.

    This “optimistic” scenario assumes that interest rates don’t rise on government debt, there are no recessions thereby reducing tax revenue, and it assumes that there is a market for treasury bonds for an insolvent government.

    What if people don’t want to buy bonds that might get defaulted on?

      1. “Starving the beast” is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending.

        The term “the beast”, in this context, refers to the United States Federal Government and the programs it funds, using mainly American taxpayer dollars, particularly social programs such as education, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

        On July 14, 1978, economist Alan Greenspan testified to the U.S. Finance Committee: “Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today’s environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenue available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

        Nothing new here. The deplorables have been voting against their best interest since Roe vs. Wade and the Nixon Southern Strategy. They have enslaved themselves to the wealthy.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

        1. Yup. Republicans have been full throttle on anti-congress propaganda since the 70s. They hate the constitution and all its trappings.

        2. But just have the opposition try to reduce the number of tanks, planes and ships from the conservatives and all hell breaks loose.

          But just have the opposition try to reduce the spending on medicare, SS, and other social benefits and all hell breaks loose.

          There may come a time when the Federal Government can not afford to buy toilet paper for the military and supply it for the social programs because of the Starve the Beast strategy.

          There was a story about a wealthy sheik who willed all his wealth to just one of his heirs. The stipulation was that the last camel of the heirs through the gate of the sheik’s city would get the whole inheritance. The heirs finally figured it out and they all rode the others’ camels into the city. No one wanted the other’s camel to be the last one in.

          If we are going to try to resolve the deficit issue, the anti-socialists will have to review the social contracts with the Federal Gov’t has with its citizens while the socialists will have to review the defensive and conservative contracts the Federal Gov’t has with its citizens and the rest of the world.

          However, there is one remedy that might work. You divide the amount that was spent in a fiscal year by the accumulated debt and that year’s deficit. This creates two factors. Then have each tax payer multiply those two factors to the amount of tax they paid that year. With the understanding that if the Federal Government were to allocate those two amounts to proportionally to each tax payer, that is what the tax payer would have to finance. That’s when the rubber will meet the road.

      2. The reason medicare and medicaid might “bankrupt” the government is medical expenses are growing exponentially at 8% per year.

        If you raise taxes too high, people decide they aren’t going to go to work or move to another country.

        Medical expenses affect everything from Federal and State Government, to businesses, to individuals.

        it is really a nasty problem.

        1. The solution is Obamacare — it pits insurers (who pay for care) against providers. It also has measures to end the idiotic system of charging patients for treatments instead of cures.

          It’s very instructive to look at the German system. While far from perfect, it is much cheaper and much better than the American system. There is a constant war between insurers and healthcare providers. The government is a more or less neutral arbiter.

          I spent several years working on a project with one of the the biggest suppliers of healthcare software to American hospitals code named “True Cost”. They project failed, but here is the kind of question that was asked:

          Say a 38 year old, slightly overweight man who occasionally smokes and is allergic to penicillin goes into the emergency room with severe stomach pain. The doctor diagnoses appendicitis. The goal is to have the man back in best health. How much will it cost?

          The answer is that nobody knows. The hospital has no clue, so they just sell treatments, like appendectomies. Appendectomies have different effects on different people. Then they send a bill to the patient although he obviously can’t pay it.

          The bill is just an random number, say $27,000, because in truth, the hospital has no clue how much an appendectomy costs. Why? Well, for example, materials like swabs and syringes are expensive. Every hospital in America has “the room” where they keep these. When a nurse comes on duty, she goes in and takes as many as she might need of each. Caretakers take the well being of their patients very seriously, and want to be sure they are prepared for anything. At the end of her shift, she throws anything she didn’t use away, because the may not be sterile. For hospital administrators, this is a complete nightmare. So they just dump on the patients, who can’t defend themselves.

          What the different between treatments and cures? Let’s say you go to the hospital for knee surgery. They cut you open, and do this and that, and then you get your bill for $27,000. Two weeks later, your knee is still in a bad way, so you are readmitted for another knee procedure. Then you get another bill for $27,000, because it is for the treatment, not the cure. Hospitals have little idea of how effective the treatments are, so they don’t charge you to cure what ails you.

          One of the key provisions of Obamacare (SOCIALISM!!! is probably what you learned from FoxNews) was saying that Medicare doesn’t pay for readmittances in less than 30 days.

          And so on. Sorry to inject actual information into this little chat. Carry on.

          1. You don’t agree with 6th grade algebra. That says ALOT.

            Don’t let politics blind you from the laws of math!

            “The bill is just a RANDOM number”

            What a great medical system. You show up and get a RANDOM bill!!!

            I am guessing the RANDOMness is skewed towards the high side….wink wink! 😉

            I never got a bill for a PENNY!

            that’s ILLEGAL!

  3. Hi Dennis, continuing our conversation from the previous non-petro thread: http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-december-22-2019/#comment-694660
    Dennis said
    “170 pounds of gasoline produces about 549 pounds of CO2, 200 pounds of coal produces roughly 200 pounds of CO2”
    You have a stoichiometric problem there unless oxygen has suddenly acquired zero mass. When carbon combines with oxygen it gets considerably heavier. If pure carbon, similar to anthracite, it’s a factor of 3.67 times.
    The EIA uses 2.86 in their example.
    “For example, coal with a carbon content of 78 percent and a heating value of 14,000 Btu per pound emits about 204.3 pounds of carbon dioxide per million Btu when completely burned. Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide.”
    https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html

    That means 200 pounds of coal burned gives 572 pounds of CO2. Consequently, EV and ICE produce the same amount of CO2 in China for 1000 mile trip.

    C +O2 ->CO2

    More importantly that kWh coming down the line can have a history of CO2, methane, SOx, NOx, etc. from coal and natural gas. Putting the pollution elsewhere might be good for the local neighborhood to a degree, but it’s still pollution and a lot more warming previous to and during the drive. The same is true of the gasoline in the ICE, a long history of pollution before and during the drive.

    Until we have a “clean” grid, both the EV and the ICE will be adding to the GHG and pollution load. Even then, some of the materials and energy classed as renewables have a lot of fossil energy and GHG emissions in their production and use.
    Some short circuit that somewhat by using PV to charge directly. So far the best option other than driving less and ride sharing.

    1. I think we agree, GF, that gradual adoption of electric vehicles is no panacea to the climate problem.

      Sure its better if the electricity is wind/solar than coal. But like you’ve pointed out before, the production of batteries and other EV components is CO2 emissions problematic.
      I really don’t think we will slow down CO2 emissions meaningfully until well after peak fossil fuel time. People are just very slow to recognize longterm problems, and respond in mass.

      What EV’s running on renewables will give you, is the ability to keep moving with some degree of affordability after oil starts to become scarce (this decade in many countries). Thats a whole different issue. Some economies could undergo a major contraction if they don’t get after it.

      I recall an example- in 2008 oil prices spiked to over $150 (despite any supply shock, and before fracking). The big wheat harvest from the Palouse (eastern WA) is shipped by barge, truck and rail down the Columbia. That transportation and other fuel related costs became so expensive, the viability of the entire crop economics from that region was brought into question.
      “Wheat grown on the Palouse yields up to 100 bushels an acre, twice the national average. Some 125 million bushels a year, worth $10 or so a bushel, are harvested ….Some 90% of the wheat grown in Washington is shipped to Portland and exported. The two biggest buyers are Japan and the Philippines.”
      There are hundreds examples of such economic/ oil price issues in this country alone.

      1. EVs are a necessary, but not sufficient, step towards decarbonizing transportation. Not too hard too understand, I would have thought. It’s basic logic.

        EVs are also interesting because they are already a massive trauma for the car industry. The amount press EVs get will continue to grow in coming years. We are at the beginning of decade of upheaval for the car industry.

        There is also a good chance that EVs will strongly effect oil demand by the end of the 20s. That is the main reason they are interesting for this forum to discuss.

        No single measure or technology will save the world.

        1. “EVs are also interesting because they are already a massive trauma for the car industry.”

          Why, aren’t EVs cars? Maybe EVs are a coming massive trauma for the planet as, among other things, rising demand for minerals needed to produce batteries has led to a surge in interest in deep-sea mining. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 29 contracts for the exploration of deep-sea mineral deposits had been granted by the International Seabed Authority by May 2018. The IUCN estimates that commercial mining could start in 2020 in Papua New Guinea’s national waters and by 2025 in international waters. But I guess such comments are taboo among the EV proponents – here and elsewhere. Doesn’t matter, seabed mining is out of sight and there will be lots of rules to make sure any ocean mining is done in an environmental friendly way. Right?

          1. Yes, they are cars, but they are much easier to build so the industry will shrink. Furthermore the skills needed to build EVs are different than traditional cars. You have to be actively ignoring the car industry not to have noticed. That is surprising on a oil oriented site, because most oil is for cars and trucks.

            As to the rest of your comment, what are you trying to prove? When I say “they are already a massive trauma for the car industry” do you think that makes me an advocate of EVs?

            It’s technical change, just like the change from cathode ray tube TVs to flat screen TVs, or the death of the typewriter. It’s happening. As I’ve said before recently, it’s odd how people are getting so triggered and defensive about it. Future shock maybe?

            The idea that EVs are worse than ICE vehicles is extremely doubtful.

            1. Agree with Alim… on this. When you consider the whole bundle, its a huge improvement.
              No panacea, but a huge improvement.
              Imagine accomplishing all the ground transport without involving much refinery capacity. There will come a time when refineries are retired for lack of feedstock, lack of demand.
              Lubricating oil use plummets. Toxic neighborhood repair shops become rare. Sure the battery requirements are far from ‘clean’, but that will likely be handled better and better over time.

              Travel less. I did 6000 miles last year (land and air and sea).

            2. The other thing to realize is that with EV’s are at a point like the aviation industry in the 1920’s. We’ve gone from puddle jumping EV’s with lead acid batteries and brushes that needed to be replaced every 100 hours, to EVs that almost have the driving range of an ICE and are achieving durability ranges of over 400K miles.

              The potential is for 1) the batteries to last for 1 million miles or longer; basically a human lifetime of driving, 2) decrease in the use of hard and hazardous to find resources in batteries, 3) to energy denser batteries where there is the potential of having the same size pack but being able to drive from Key West to Seattle on one charge, and 4) the use of cheaper but better materials.

              Musk says that Number 1 above is taking place. Number 2 is actively being done and researched. As an example for Number 3, Honda is developing a fluoride battery with the potential of being cheaper and having an energy density of 8x to 10x current batteries and Number 4 is ongoing.

              Electric motors mechanical weak spots are the two bearing housing the rotor. Compare that to what needs to be done to keep an ICE running well for 200K miles and you can begin to understand what ramifications EVs will have on parts stores, automobile engine manufacturing, and your local auto repair shop.

              In August of 2018 there was a Tesla Model S with 425,000 miles on it.

              With all that said, I would like to see vehicles that are 100% recyclable. I am cautious when I think of batteries containing cobalt or fluoride. Both are nasty elements.

              I look on all that is happening as challenges, problems to be solved. I think technologically we are in better shape than the Romans, Greek, Egyptians, and ancient Chinese civilizations to solve our energy situation as we reach peak oil, gas, and coal.

            1. You don’t sound like an expert, otherwise you would being saying something cleverer.

              As explained in detail in a long comment a couple of threads ago (q.v.), every major car company is spending billions on EV tech and looking for partners, because they know that several big companies will go down in the next ten years.

              So FIAT/Jeep/Dodge/Ram is going to Peugeot, Ford cars will all be rebadged VWs, Honda may very well go to GM, GM has dumped most of its foreign subsidiaries, including selling Opel/Vauxhall to Peugeot, Toyota will merge with China’s BYD, archrivals BMW and Daimler are edging closer and closer, but may get gobbled up by BAIC (Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Co., Ltd.), Renault/Nissan/Mitsubishi will have to stick together despite the Ghosn mess. Smaller companies like Tesla, Mazda or Geely/Volvo will get swallowed. My guess is that Hyundai/Kia will become suppliers for branded fleets like Uber.

              If you don’t know this is happening you simply have no clue what is going on in the automotive industry. LOL all you want. No doubt you can get drunk and browbeat your niece at the Thanksgiving table by pretending to know what you are talking about.

              2019 was a very bad year compared to 2018. On the other hand, with 80-90 million light vehicles sold worldwide, the panic seems bizarre. But 2019 was the year that the industry realized they collectively need a trillion dollars to move to the new technology, and that margins are set to get even worse than they are now.

              That’s why big suppliers like Delphi are dropping “automotive” from their company names, and spinning off their more mechanical divisions in favor of electronics. Bankers simply aren’t willing to bankroll traditional car companies except niche luxury and specialty brands, like Ram or Masarati, now both French.

          3. “Why, aren’t EVs cars? Maybe EVs are a coming massive trauma for the planet as, among other things, rising demand for minerals needed to produce batteries has led to a surge in interest in deep-sea mining.”

            As nobody knows the next generation of batteries your argument is pure speculation. Alternative chemistries may only use abundant stuff that is already mined in huge amounts on surface…

            1. “Alternative chemistries may only use abundant stuff that is already mined in huge amounts on surface…”

              LOL And you accuse me of “pure speculation”, whatever PURE speculation is. BTW rechargeable batteries CURRENTLY in use mainly employ large quantities of some combination of lead, nickel, cadmium, and lithium.

              Here’s the problem — the deep ocean, where mining is just now getting started, constitutes the largest and least understood biological habitat on Earth. Environmental risks of this could be enormous and include: seabed habitat degradation over vast areas, species extinctions, reduced habitat complexity, slow (and uncertain) recovery, suspended sediment plumes, toxic plumes from surface ore dewatering, pelagic ecosystem impacts, undersea noise, ore and oil spills in transport, etc. But that’s speculation, not pure but speculation nevertheless.

            2. This will only end badly. It’s already ending for trillions of life forms on this planet.
              This is not extinction, this is plain outright conscious extermination.

    2. It is correct that EVs will not save us, the best CO2 reduction for the money is the reduction of FFs in electricity generation, then space heating, then industrial process heat, then biofuels.

      The CO2 balance of a EV depends on annual mileage and RE share of the electricity.

      1. This is not about EV’s saving us, it’s about facing reality so people can make better decisions if they so desire.

        1. “This is not about EV’s saving us, it’s about facing reality so people can make better decisions if they so desire.”

          At the moment we see often two kinds of arguments:

          1) We “only” need high numbers of EVs to solve a large share of the CO2 issue.

          2) EVs do not deliver because the electriicty is too dirty and construction of EVs need to much energy.

          Both arguments are nonsense. EVs have the advantage that they can be introduced at a very high rate and may have a moderate impact in medium term. However, other more important contributions will come from a transition of electrcicty generation to REs and changes in the haet market. The latter will take longer…

          1. You chose “arguments” then call them nonsense. Are you arguing with yourself?
            The world is very complex, simplistic dualistic thinking only causes more problems.

          2. EV’s Will Shoot Further

            Carsterbation, with industry circle-jerks such as on sites like this one.

            Hey, join the fun.

    3. There is a clear and distinct way to personally have a much smaller CO2 (and total energy) footprint for your personal transportation, if it is important to you beyond just a discussion.
      Simply, switch to an electric vehicle. Pick one with a small range battery pack. For example. a Nissan leaf has 150 mile range. It has a 40 kwh battery pack. Your cost/mile is hard to beat.
      And best if you can make sure that your electricity comes from a source other than coal, preferably wind/solar/hydro.
      It need not be more complicated than that.

    4. These calculations miss the forrest by focusing on the trees. Sure, grids in many parts of the globe also need to be cleaned. EVs not only help reduce the cost of electrical storage but are themselves dispatchable loads even if only on the charge control side. The installed costs of wind and solar are already largely below the running costs of all other grid electrical sources. This is true in many places even with 4 hours of battery storage. Those relatively cheap 4 hours of storage costs have been enabled already by the greatly expanding EV production. We need inexpensive storage and demand flexibility to continue adding clean energy sources such as wind and solar to most grids. EVs themselves create few emissions in operation (primarily tire dust), immediately displace vehicle emissions from city centers where point emissions cause so much direct harm and they enable cleaning the grid which needs to be done anyhow. Most of the environmental harm currently attributed to EVs comes during their construction and will decline massively as the energy sector decarbonizes. Grid decarbonization is significantly enabled by EVs.

    5. Gonefishing,

      Sorry. You are correct. I found a website with bad information. I agree when fossil fuels produce the electricity used by EVs, not that much is accomplished unless the fossil fuel power plants produce the electricity very efficiently as in a highly efficient natural gas power generation plant. Though any methane emissions may more than negate the effect as you have pointed out. So the best way forward is to use less energy and when we do produce it using wind and solar power, just looking for some possible way forward with the fewest unintended consequences.

  4. Brownouts, Blackouts and Intermittent Nuclear Cooling
    (Yes, this is something I thought about recently all on my own. Has anyone else? Might this be a problem, like if the grid gets sufficiently destabilized by the storage can being kicked down the road?)

    A matter of storage

    “Subsidised non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies which can only make intermittency matters worse are the only form of generation currently being widely deployed. But without yet-to-be-invented or yet-to-be-upscaled storage technologies deployed on a far wider scale than is currently the case, adding even more renewable energy to the mix is a recipe for both financial and real world disaster.”

    Thank you, Tim.

    1. From your link:

      One manifestation of this is the insane belief that our advanced industrial economy can simply unplug our fossil fuel inputs and replace them seamlessly with non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies like wind turbines, solar panels and tidal barrages. Indeed, for several decades during which developed states like the UK were using them to replace coal in electricity generation, it seemed for all the world like these technologies were instantly replaceable.

      Insane belief indeed, a faith believed by so many it is like a religion with them. They believe it will be a smoothe transition when in fact there will be no transition at all.

      The belief that we, almost eight billion people and still growing, can simply “get off fossil fuel” is beyond doubt the dumbest idea that ever came down the pike. I know that is heresy to most of the fine folks on this blog but that is my firm opinion and I don’t give a shit who knows it.

      And to all those fine folks, your heart is in the right place but your brain is not.

      1. Industry + 8 billion = >1 Earth

        People who focus too closely at industrial trinkets like PV’s or EV’s miss the glaring fact that industry produces much more than that, like electric-powered robot vacuum-cleaners and electric-powered leaf blowers– you know– stuff we all absolutely need.
        Of course some will jump in to inform us that industry is greening itself, with the implicit suggestion in the faith that industry as we know it– however and by whoever its run– will actually green itself.

      1. ‘For example, the Camp Fire in California are caused by sprawl’
        By that line of reasoning, so was all the casualties from the big tsunami in Indonesia.
        Those people just shouldn’t have been living around there?
        The whole human world is ‘sprawl’

        1. Not really. The fire was caused by cheap, extensive infrastructure, which is typical for many American cites. Running overhead power lines through semi-arid forests is a recipe for disaster. This was no act of god, it was the result of immense human stupidity.

          California has been building single family housing on greenfield sites at an insane rate over the past half century. Most of the surface area of the cities are exclusively zoned for single family housing units. People live out in the woods because you can’t get adequate housing in town.

          The entire system is unsustainable from an ecological point of view. My great grandfather told my mother that he and Paul Bunyan had chopped down all the redwoods in California, but the destruction didn’t stop there. Most of the driving in California is caused by dumb zoning laws. Vast areas of wilderness have been destroyed for single-family quarter-acre lots, and human intervention has started processes like repeated forest fires and accelerated erosion that are turning the state into a desert.

          What Strong Towns points out is that it is economically unsustainable as well. This isn’t a case of Mother Nature losing so we can get richer.

          America has an infrastructure crisis, with crumbling bridges, lead in the water, and absurdly inadequate electricity transmission, which causes constant power outages and fires. The usual story is that the problem is we don’t spend enough. Actually the problem is terrible patterns of land use that lead to infrastructure that is so poorly designed that it will never pay for itself.

          Every time you build any infrastructure you saddle yourself with long term liabilities, because in twenty years of so it will need repairing. If it hasn’t generated enough additional taxes to pay for the repairs, it will crumble. A four lane highway leading to a small group of single story wooden buildings and a parking lot is a financial black hole.

          I come from a town in Tennessee that easily doubled in size without increasing its population after I left in the 70s. The City Manager (we had been in my mother’s cub scout troop together) told me that when he took the job they planned an 18 year road repair cycle — every stretch of road in the city was to be renewed once every 18 years. But due to budget constraints, it was a 42 year cycle. His solution? Stop building new roads, and revive the half dead downtown area. He made quite some progress, but I remember driving through town at my mother’s funeral and being shocked to see how much had decayed or been destroyed.

          If you think European and Asian cities are as sprawled as California cities, you need to travel more. Both economically and ecologically, urban development in the US has been an unmitigated disaster for the last 60 years, although things are slowly changing now. Here’s a nice blog post about the scale of the problem.

          https://granolashotgun.com/2015/03/17/urban-triage/

          1. I agree with many of the points you raise. People here in Calif have pushed out far from the cities, primarily trying to find some affordable home space. Same thing happened in Europe over the past couple thousand years.
            Calif has few ‘nice’ areas. Much of the land is extremely steep. Much of the good/flat land is zoned exclusive agriculture, although probably not strictly enough in much of the locales. Much of the land is in protected forest zones.
            So, many people have moved into the marginal zones, with fire risk high. Just like in other heavy fire zones, like Portugal, Greece, Australia.
            It would be better if everyone lived in tightly clustered zones, sparing the countryside from our trampling. But then you would have to live very close to other humans. That can be very bad, in so many ways.

            Sprawl refers to direct spread of a metro at its margins. The camp Fire was very far from any sizeable metro. Go south about halfway between Nashville and Huntsville. Thats roughly equivalent. I think of it not so much as sprawl, but more as just overpopulation. Like much of the planet.
            We have the recipe for this pattern to repeat over and over.

            btw- Calif passed a state law requiring all municipalities to allow the building of small secondary housing units on the current lots, usurping all local zoning restrictions. This allows people to add additional housing, packed into the backyards, right up against the property lines, without significant permitting restrictions. The goal is enable more hosing in the cities where the jobs are. Lots of jobs. Lots of people looking for a small place to live.

            1. I honestly don’t know where to start. The sprawl in American cities is painfully obvious to anyone who has lived in a well designed city. The amount of wasted space is just insane.

              Also your nitpicking about the definition of sprawl makes little sense. The point is the ratio of public to private investment, which is much to high just about everywhere in America, and worse the less dense the population. To repeat myself:

              A four lane highway leading to a small group of single story wooden buildings and a parking lot is a financial black hole.

              None of the stuff you see spread out everywhere in America will ever pay for itself, and more than the giant heads on Easter Island were a good investment. That is why it is crumbling.

              Look at this Los Angeles street, 25 yards wide and surrounded by empty parking lots and a few scattered one story buildings. No wonder the city can’t afford to bury the power lines.
              https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2355168,-118.5611258,3a,75y,289.47h,85.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUuhEhaCQxARIG06RbFjHvQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

              Compare it to a street scene in Düsseldorf.
              https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2379151,6.7992655,3a,75y,239.68h,95.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3Jj2ovmwxWJvFbbbAiRs3A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D3Jj2ovmwxWJvFbbbAiRs3A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D193.0857%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

              Those are 6-8 story buildings containing stores, houses and offices. They cough up taxes. The street is narrow to save space and to cut costs. So the utilities are all hidden underground and in good repair.

              So maybe you don’t like living in the city, but cities subsidize less dense areas. Cut those subsidies and huge amounts of infrastructure would disappear, and you would have to go it by yourself.

              A standard argument is that America has sprawl because there is so much cheap land, but that is misleading, because you can’t have sprawl without heavily subsidized infrastructure. It’s not the free market, it’s misguided government spending that causes sprawl.

          2. “. People live out in the woods because you can’t get adequate housing in town.”

            People mostly live out in the woods because it’s impossible to live well in town unless you have a shit load of money. I live BETTER in almost every respect in the woods on a pittance than some multi millionaire acquaintances live in the city .

            I couldn’t live nearly as well in the city on ten of fifteen times as much money.

            My old car enables me to get to the super market and the few other places I need to go.. as well as the occasional cultural event.

            Except for the people intimately associated with universities, probably not more than ten percent of all the people in any given city attend anything other than BALL GAME or some other such trivial indulgence more than once a year. I can drive oftener than that.

            But I do agree that if we were to be rational and sensible about it, we could have live very well indeed in cities, with privacy enough and space enough per person and per household, lots of open green space, and all the economic advantages that come with living close together.

            But Mother Nature doesn’t give a shit. The only way she keeps score is by the fossil record.

            It’s all about “go forth and multiply”. The people that put this LITERALLY into their sacred ( to them anyway) scriptures understood that success in the real world is measured by numbers and territory.

            How it can be that people with degrees in biology can fail to understand such a simple observation arising from evolutionary theory escapes me.

            Religions are evolved behaviors that enable their adherents to survive and thrive, to go forth and multiply.

            When a time comes that a religion no longer serves this purpose well, those who follow it will wither away.

            If the withering and replacement with new cultural memes involves red in tooth and claw encounters, Mother Nature still doesn’t give a shit.

            Mother Nature doesn’t give a shit if we destroy everything alive on the surface of the Earth and in the sea.

            She’s ready with more life living inside stones a thousand feet under the surface. Some of that life will be brought to the surface by erosion, or plate tectonics, and it will spread…… until the Earth is green again, if the sun doesn’t vaporize the Earth first.

            1. People mostly live out in the woods because it’s impossible to live well in town unless you have a shit load of money.

              That’s because American cities are so poorly designed. Apartment buildings are banned in most areas of most cities, and public transportation is miserable. So you have to own a house and a car, which makes no sense is a heavily populated area.

              The situation is very different in Northern Europe, when people even move into town to raise families. American cities are taking note, however, because subsidizing suburbs is bankrupting them.

              For example I come from Kingsport, Tennessee. Downtown died (or was killed) in the eighties, but the city, broke, realized the needed to revive it. So now they planting a few trees and are having condos built.

              https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5521167,-82.5639463,3a,75y,57.17h,99.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOj5QTAe1JY-foP3uURTnwg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

              The amount of wasted space is still unbelievable.

          3. ‘For example, the Camp Fire in California are caused by sprawl’

            Ummm, the closest city over 100,000 people is over 80 miles away.
            Very sparsely populated in between. Sorry.

            Perhaps you are indicating that humans around the world should avoid ‘sprawling’ into risky zones. If so, I tend to agree. Unfortunately, with 7.8 B people its not feasible to find nice safe place for everyone to live. Between fire, flood, earthquake, volcano, drought, and factor in wetlands, steep slope and similar physical limitations, you are left with a fairly small zone of ‘safe’ living.
            Almost all people in Australia and California live in high fire zone. Cutting down the trees and paving the territory can lower the risk.
            Hundreds of millions of people around the world live in tidal and riverbasin flood zones.
            Tehran and Istanbul, Tokyo, Jakarta, Manila,Mexico City, Delhi, and Santiago are just a few of the cities at severe risk of earthquake damage.

            Ideally, we wouldn’t be sprawling into any of these risky areas.
            If you live in ‘safe ‘ area, be thankful.

            btw- Germany has a history of being an extremely unsafe place. I can think of a civilian population subset who suffered over 95% fatality rate in the 20th century. Tennessee has a similar kind of history- ask the Cherokee.
            Many people have reasons to migrate. Often forced.

            1. So genocide in justifies the terrible decisions of California city planners? Or are you just lashing out at places I call home?

              That doesn’t even come close to being a rational argument. It’s clear from this remark that your defense of California’s blatant stupidity and poor planning is visceral and tribal, not logical. You should think about that.

              And have a heart for the Bear River, Mattale, Lassick, Nogatl, Wintun, Yana, Yahi, Maidu, Wintun, Sinkyone, Wailaki, Kato, Yuki, Pomo, Lake Miwok, Wappo, Coast Miwok, Interior Miwok, Wappo, Monache, Shasta, Yokuts, Costanoan, Esselen, Salinan and Tubatulabal tribes.

              Back to the point, the fact that a bunch of people were living out in the middle of nowhere on heavily subsidized infrastructure. I don’t accept your narrow definition of sprawl. Th bottom line is that California (like much of America, including Tennessee) can’t maintain its infrastucture because it is spread too thin. People who claim that the country is the way it is because of thir free choice are actually sucking the government’s teat and aren’t willing to pay the taxes needed to adequately finance the whole mess.

              Again: A four lane highway leading to a parking lot and a few one story wooden buildings is a financial black hole. Furthermore, the overhead powerlines beside the highway are a threat to the environment.

  5. The Internet Is Saturated With Tesla’s Elon Musk, But Why?

    In a new Bloomberg video (scroll below), Vance tries to explain the irresistible appeal of Elon Musk, whom Neil deGrasse Tyson characterizes as “a cross-pollination of Thomas Edison and Tony Stark.” Vance describes Musk as the inspirational successor to Steve Jobs, and as “the biggest risk-taker on the planet.” Whenever one of his companies achieves a big success, his modus operandi is not to rest and consolidate, but to immediately take another, even bigger risk. Elon Musk himself is “this huge brand, even more so than his companies.”

    Vance takes us through Musk’s early business successes: Zip2 and PayPal, which Elon walked away from with around $170 million. No private island or yacht for this 31-year-old entrepreneur (he did buy a McLaren, which he later wrecked). Musk poured his fortune into SpaceX, Tesla and SolarCity, which, considering some of SpaceX’s early mishaps, might well be described as “literally lighting your money on fire.”

    The rocket-builder and the automaker “remained notorious money pits for over a decade,” but Musk’s goal was not personal wealth. He decided at an early age that space travel, clean energy and electrified transportation were the most pressing issues facing the human race (yes, the idealistic Elon does indeed speak in such terms), and that he would devote his life to making them reality.

    In 2008, the world economy went into meltdown, and there was turmoil both in Tesla’s boardroom and Musk’s personal life. “It was the darkest time in [Musk’s] life, without question,” says Vance. Venerable firms in the auto industry were going bankrupt left and right, and the Silicon Valley startup was down to its last few dollars. Money was pouring out and trickling in, and the Roadster had serious problems – Musk was forced to face a roomful of angry customers and tell them that the company needed to raise prices to make ends meet.

    The Iron Man did not give up. In what Vance calls “one of the great escape acts in business history,” he saved the company by putting his personal fortune on the line. “Either I took all of the capital that I had left from the sale of PayPal…and invested that in Tesla, or Tesla would die,” said Musk (as recounted in Revenge of the Electric Car). He pulled another $40 million out of his pocket, a ballsy move that impressed the other investors with his all-out commitment. “That incredible braggadocio, confidence, catalyzed a change in people’s opinion,” said VC investor and board member Steve Jurvetson. “He saved the company in its darkest hour with an act of heroism that is hard to describe. There’s nothing like spending your last dollar on a company that you believe in.”

    Hope this helps to explain why some people (myself included) find this guy and his shenanigans interesting.

    1. islandboy, Tesla’s 2019 delivery numbers were released today.

      Cumulative sales:
      31/12/2014 64,811
      31/12/2019 923,352

      CAGR 70.1%

      Wow.

      1. 2019, +/- five years in picture form, using a 50% CAGR from 2020 onwards…

  6. India reportedly considering waiving carbon tax on coal

    The festive period has brought mixed tidings for the renewables industry with India reportedly considering a proposal to waive its carbon tax on coal-fired power just as Germany shuttered another nuclear facility.

    News wire Reuters on Monday carried an article on its Zawya Middle Eastern web portal which stated its staff had seen documents outlining a proposal to waive the INR400/ton ($5.61) carbon tax applied to the production and import of coal.

    The news service reported the suggestion had been made by Hardik Shah in October, as a means of helping out coal power producers who have been affected by late payments from India’s financially crippled electricity distribution companies.

    Emission reduction delays

    Reuters reported India has already pushed back to 2022 a plan to reduce sulphur oxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and stated more than half of the nation’s coal power facilities were expected to miss the start last month of a phased deadline to install equipment to reduce the emissions, which are harmful to human health.

    Shah, a deputy secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office, reportedly suggested to the Ministry of Power the carbon tax on coal be removed to help coal-fired plant operators pay for the cost of installing anti sulphur oxide equipment. Reuters stated Shah argued that if coal power companies funded the equipment themselves they would simply end up owed even more money by distribution companies.

    pv magazine put in four telephone calls to the Indian Ministry of Power this morning but was cut off each time without explanation.

    Can’t allow anything to get in the way of economic growth now can we? /sarc

  7. Britain’s zero-carbon power outstrips fossil fuels in 2019

    LONDON (Reuters) – Britain, the birthplace of coal power, produced more electricity from zero-carbon sources such as wind, solar and nuclear than from fossil fuel plants for the first time in 2019, National Grid said on Wednesday.

    Having built the world’s first coal-fired power plant in the 1880s, coal became Britain’s dominant electricity source and a major economic driver for the next century. But last year Britain became the first G7 country to commit to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 and in November will host the United Nations’ international climate talks in Glasgow.

    “As we enter a new decade, this truly is a historic moment,” said National Grid Chief Executive John Pettigrew, referring to the company’s latest data.

    The data shows wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and imports produced about 48.5% of Britain’s electricity in 2019 while fossil fuels such as coal and gas contributed about 43%. The rest came from biomass.

    1. This graphic nicely displays Britain’s electricity mix change over recent time.

    2. “The data shows wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and imports produced about 48.5% of Britain’s electricity in 2019 ”

      The imports are mainly coal, therefore, the situation is not that good….

  8. Well, there may be a few problems out there but at least CO2 is maintaining a healthy growth trend as we enter a new decade.

    Daily CO2 — Jan. 1, 2020: 412.64 ppm; Jan. 2, 2019: 409.82 ppm

    1. How else will earth get warm again?
      According to this scientist, nature will take over the job soon. No more need for us to struggle producing as much GHG as possible. We will become anti-warmers (and see how well that works out).

      The Compost Bomb.

      Methane – The Bigger Picture in Climate Change
      “Dr. Richard Nolthenius – Chair of the Dept of Astronomy at Cabrillo College, California – gives a 17 minute talk on Nov 8, 2019 at the Erica Schilling Auditorium at Cabrillo College. This followed the showing of the new documentary “Blowout” by AK Productions on the dangers of fracking in the U.S. to ground water and greenhouse gas emissions. Dr. Nolthenius’ Presentation puts methane emissions into the larger context of future climate change. It includes the implications of how new determinations of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) will accelerate methane emissions from wetlands and thawing permafrost, triggering climate tipping points. It discusses subsea methane hydrates stability, the Compost Bomb Instability, and also how fracking will adversely affect the ability to permanently sequester CO2 underground.”
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYxrTNSG2E0

      1. Hey Max. Can you show us the same kind of graph with plutonium? I’m trying to develop the ‘correct perspective’ on that as well.
        Thanks.

        btw- its kind of like fecal matter in your food. why are people so worried if you can’t taste it?

      2. Many poisons are lethal at extremely low doses. Why don’t you use your argument then sprinkle some ricin on your breakfast egg? Just a few grains. BTW A dose ricin the size of a single grain of sand is enough to kill an adult human.

      3. How is that perspective. It takes about 200mg of cyanide to kill someone about 100kg.
        That’s 0.2% of the persons body weight. Small amounts can have drastic consequences.

        And for the past 50 years or so humans activity causes more GHG than natural causes.

      5. Perspective includes impact of changes. Therefore, your “argument” is strange if small changes of the GHG concentration is the driving force.

        By starting with not important stuff (oxygen and nitrogen) you show that you are either stupid or dishonest. What is it? Combination also works.

  9. Having just returned from a visit away I was hoping on POB to see some of your opinions on the latest Iran/US escalation with this recent drone strike.

    I would not be surprised to see the Straits closed in the next few days. I would be interested in your opinions, for sure.

    regards

    1. Tehran has been carefully managing its own escalation over the past months, which is why casualties have remained so low. The US has moved several steps up an escalatory ladder, and Iran will be forced to respond. The assassination of General Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis represents a dramatic escalation in tensions. Iran will treat the killing with utmost gravity and will immediately begin planning a response. While the imminent threat of all-out war looks unlikely, the Iranian reply could unleash a chain of events leading to a messy conflict that ultimately leads to war. America’s ability to maintain a diplomatic corp safely in Iraq will likely soon be off the table.

    2. Howdy.
      I expect the Iranian response to be delayed, piecemeal, and designed to avoid inciting a major attack on their land.
      And for it to be effective in achieving one of their purposes. They have many purposes- take your pick. Not mentioned is their competition with Saudi/Sunni. Its a big one.
      The Quds Force (Persian: سپاه قدس‎ sepāh-e qods)[4] is a unit in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) specializing in unconventional warfare and military intelligence operations. Responsible for extraterritorial operations,[5] the Quds Force supports non-state actors in many countries, including Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Yemeni Houthis, and Shia militias in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.[5] WIKI

      1. In terms of immediate threats I’d be looking for a VBIED with a Shiite militia type at the wheel. Something big like Beirut in 83 that had Regan cut and run. 82nd ain’t no mopes when it comes to gate guard, so maybe a formation of homemade militia drones is the new VBIED. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was the deputy chief of PMF/PMC, and the commander of Kata’ib Hezbollah. They ain’t no mopes either. It is a certainty that Iran-backed militias will increase attacks on US targets in Iraq. See what Pompeo er I mean Trump decides to do about that.

        Long term- suicide bomber’s going after buses of Israeli tourists in Eastern Europe,
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Burgas_bus_bombing
        hell maybe American tourists too. Cyber attacks on KSA oil facilities. Quds Force seems kinda fuckin nuts.
        Iran probably sees itself as having the choice between war now or war later. Given their constraints, I’d likely suspect they choose war now. Balls in PMF/PMC/Quds Force’s court. To put it mildly, I find that very unsettling.

        1. Something big like Beirut in 83 that had Regan cut and run.

          But we then defeated Grenada—
          (sarc)

        2. Minds & People In Boxes & Profit

          There is and isn’t a war with Iran (etc.) right now of course.
          ‘Surgical strikes’ have often boiled down to the individual level, to safely-outsourced living-room-control-center drone-flying relatively-clueless ‘kid soldiers’ playing pseudo-computer-games of real, far away people getting blown to bits, and ‘thought-crime’ pre-emptive measures, with assorted media-manipulations/indoctrinations (fear, demonization, lies, distortions, fabrications, Assange-example-making, OPCW, etc.), sanctions, surveillance and the creation and/or nurturing of proxies, including to sell them ‘defense’ industry stuff and the death, desolation and despair, etc., that results that can then be used to sell yet more and of course to rebuild and plunder resources.

          Making the world a freer, safer place? Uh, why? It’s just not profitable.

          ” War is a racket.” ~ Smedley D. Butler

          Angriff (Mind In A Box Mix)

    2. Can someone explain why most of today’s climate models are predicting a temperature rise of 2 degs per century and the real world data is 0.74 degs per century, shown on the chart.

      1. Choice of period of time: The linaer regression used data starting in 1890.

        However, if you look at the picture the part after 1960 is steeper, extrapolation from there gives a higher rate….

      2. Warming started to ‘gather steam’ around 1980. The pace quickens thereafter.
        You’re good with charts Ovi, I’m sure you can see that.

        Look at the data for the decade 2010.
        We better have some cold global temp years soon, or that 2 degree is going to start looking like an underestimate.

      3. Ovi,

        Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been rising rapidly since about 1970. If we look at data from page below

        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt

        and plot the linear trend for Jan 1970 to October 2019 for land ocean global temperature the slope is 1.85 C per century.

        The models take into account various feedbacks such as reduced aerosols, methane release as permafrost melts and other greenhouse gases besides simply CO2.

        As we learn more the situation gets progressively worse as far as likely outcome with business as usual.

    3. It was really close, but Albuquerque finished 2019 with the coldest year since 2008. We only beat 2013 by 0.04F though, so it was 57.53F in 2019, v. 57.57F in 2013. Still, nice to see. Highs were 28th coldest since 1931, tied with 2008. Lows…still pretty warm, top 20 or so. All that extra urbanization from our prosperous growth in recent times and this year’s moisture means no extended periods of low lows.

  11. As we all know, there is a huge amount of information published about greenhouse gases and global warming.

    As we also know, the earth’s magnetic field has been tapering off for about 1,000 years. The magnetic north pole is moving, and fast. The “Ring of Fire” is as active as any of us have seen in our lifetime. Eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis are frighteningly common, and not just in the Pacific. Iceland, Italy, etc. It’s not just the “Ring of Fire.”

    Are the two correlated? Does the increased geological activity correlate with changes to the earth’s magnetic field?

    Given the internet, it’s harder than ever to separate the wheat from the chaff. What information is well reasoned and scientific, what information is intentionally spun, and what information is outright clickbait? Hard to say. Add “unintentional spinning” to that mix and it gets even harder to focus on what might be called “actual data.”

    But it’s out there. Whether people are studying it, that’s yet a different question.

    So I ask: in your opinion, does the earth’s magnetic field affect climate, weather, both, or neither?

    There’s no question that magnetic north has recently moved a lot. There’s no question that our magnetic field has weakened for as long as we’ve been measuring it. There’s very little question that this has happened before, and that humans have survived it. We can’t be 100% sure, since we weren’t actually there and measuring it, but the evidence is about as strong as it can be. Changes in earth’s magnetic strength and polarity appear to be a historical fact.

    What are your thoughts on this consequential subject?

    1. As we also know, the earth’s magnetic field has been tapering off for about 1,000 years.
      Citation?

      1. A quick Google and, voila… there it is, indeed, the research into this phenomona. Early indications are that times like we are in now, with weakening magnetic fields (and the change that accompanies them) are also warmer, but the research is still new.

        If you are 50 years old and live in the USA, then the North Pole has moved about 1,200 MILES away from you in your lifetime. About 25 miles a year, give or take… and accelerating. It’s now more like 35, so I am being generous.

        And the motion is AWAY from us, towards Russia. Thus, magnetically the USA is much further south than it used to be. The magnetic north was much closer, 100 years ago. Thousands of miles closer.

    2. “Are the two correlated? Does the increased geological activity correlate with changes to the earth’s magnetic field?”
      No. And the geologic activity has not increased.

      “So I ask: in your opinion, does the earth’s magnetic field affect climate, weather, both, or neither?”
      No.

      “What are your thoughts on this consequential [magnetic field] subject?
      There are 649 much more consequential items to concern yourself with.

      1. Interesting times we live in. All I’m saying is maybe we should ask our climatologists to pay a bit more attention to this? Some warnings, if warranted, would be nice.

  12. We were all right to hate the plastic straw ban. And we need more legislation like it.
    By Meredith Haggerty

    https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/12/27/21030090/straw-ban-environmental-regulation-plastic-ocean

    In the US, anti-straw sentiment gained momentum in 2018 largely as a response to the news that straws are sea-turtle murderers. Plastic straw bans popped up across the country — in Washington, DC, on the first day of 2019; in Seattle in 2018; in a handful of Massachusetts towns starting as far back as 2015; statewide in California in 2019. Some brands, including Starbucks, Hyatt, and SeaWorld, phased them out preemptively. In 2019, we felt the effects, and talked about them a whole lot.

    The backlash popped up everywhere we complain about little indignities: local news, social media, late-night talk shows, the line at Starby’s. The topic even appeared on the r/AmItheAsshole (AITA) subreddit, on which a restaurant patron asked if they were, in fact, “TA” for “replying to the waitress ‘I think I’ll kill a turtle’ when she asked if I wanted a straw.” (The consensus was that they were not TA, based on the waitress’s treacly original question.)

    Fox News used it as an example of hysterical liberal overreach, but it has been correctly pointed out that this particular ban negatively impacts people with disabilities with very little payoff in return. Plus, the actual effectiveness of the new straw alternatives have been publicly questioned, and not just by me and Fritz.

    Experiencing the tangible, often-silly effects of consumer-level environmental regulation has had an unarguably positive side effect: It’s gotten us talking (and talking and talking) about the relative culpability of our consumer choices in the destruction of the planet — and how much blame should go to the system at large.

    The straws in the ocean are just a symptom of the larger problem: the harmful and excessive manufacturing of so much stuff. Capitalism has put us into a state of ceaseless, unthinking consumption. Stopping for a second to consider why we buy or use the things we do is a helpful correction, but smart regulation can, instead of placing these issues in our individual laps, relieve the psychic burden of the shopper. It’s easy not to buy harmful products when the harmful products aren’t available to buy. The straw ban sucks, and we need more — better, smarter, more compassionate — regulation like it.

    1. I will never switch to paper straws. Not only are they inferior, it’s an example of big government overregulation.

      1. I know plastic bags kill sea turtles. They think they are jellyfish and eat them, then die. I have no idea if plastic straws kill sea turtles. But if they do I hope you choke on one. The government has the absolute right to ban anything that kills wildlife. But I know the right-wingers who only watch Fox News and listen to hate radio don’t give a flying fuck about wildlife.

    1. Hey, where are the comments here? Our president, in an attempt to get his ass reelected, is sacrificing thousands of American lives for that purpose. Is that okay? Comment if you agree. Comment if you disagree. I would just like to know your opinion.

      2. Thousands of lives are not his concern, obviously.
        A shallow and greedy sociopath.
        But it is late stage capitalism——

      3. I’m baffled at how this Narcissistic Personality Disorder sociopath became president. Hopefully there will be a historian a 1000 years from now who will write “The Decline and Fall of the American Empire” and explain how it happened.

        And I’m with you on the future Ron. It’s fun reading the various cornucopian viewpoints here. I don’t think there will be solar power, EVs, or 10 billion people on this planet. More likely a few million people in scattered, small communities–if we’re lucky.

      4. I would not be surprised by anything trump would do or say to get re-elected. Hell, he’d probably even try to stay on if defeated at the polls. Hope you are ready for that extravaganza.

        I’m wondering what iran wants to achieve with its coming response. After all, trump has handed the response card to them with a bow on it. I suspect they will use the chips to try and get usa out of iraq, or perhaps to degrade saudi oil export capability. I’m pretty sure they will make their move in a way that will make it difficult for the usa justify a military strike on their land.

        post script- trump will do absolutely anything (even fake an invasion of the usa) to avoid having to release his financial records. For him to release the records would be political suicide. Nothing scares him more (aside from a personalized orange jumpsuit or a tight fitting white coat with binding straps).

        1. I fear more attacks on Saudi Arabia, perhaps the Ras Tanura refinery or export terminal. My son retired from there in October 2018 after 23 years there, most of it at Ras Tanura. A lot of Americans are there so that would make a perfect target for Iran. They want revenge.

          And Trump wants them to take revenge by killing Americans. That would stir up emotions in America and ensure his reelection… he hopes.

          Iran says they have identified 52 potential targets. I am sure Ras Tanura is one of them, and perhaps Dhahran.

          2. The biggest oil customers of S. Arabia currently are China, Japan, S. Korea, India, and ‘other Asia’- comprising about 80% of Saudi exports.
            Iran surely wants some of those customers back.
            Those countries won’t be too happy with trumps adventurism if it disrupts their access to the markets.
            You better believe Iran knows that full well.

            I also point out that Irans regional political/fundamentalist religious agenda apparently is far more important to them than simple things like economic growth. Their optional military activities beyond their borders is extremely aggressive and far reaching.
            The [trump administration] act of pulling out of the nuclear treaty with them was extremely foolhardy. No surprise there.

            Fools and Fundamentalists. Just great.

            1. This will most likely, at the very very least, significantly raise the price of oil and collapse the economy. Then, Trump can blame it all on Obama for not having dealt with it.

              JFK was taken out for not saving a few casinos. Just sayin’. At the very least Trump should be removed from office to save the US from collapse. But no…you watch, as this unfolds dummies will rally around the flag and reelect him.

      6. I think it’s a bad thing, just to get that part of the comment out of the way.

        It does make me revisit the “I could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue” hypothesis.

        I am pretty sure that a presidential edict (by Tweet, naturally) for his supporters to go out and kill all the Blacks and/or Jews- a call to genocide- would be too far (note that I am only about 90% certain of this).

        However, I’m not sure this will hurt him with his base even if it goes bad immediately. On the other hand, the odds of it building his base seems remote. We should remember that this is a man who went bankrupt running a casino.

        My guess is that he sees his chances on impeachment as very, very bad.

        1. We should remember that this is a man who went bankrupt running a casino.
          “To be fair to Trump, 66.7% of his wives left him, 100% of his casinos have been bankrupted, 100% of his universities and charities were shut down, and over 50% of his other businesses have failed, so WH staff turnover at 43% means he is over-performing by his standards.”

    2. Yes, Trump was obviously planning to do this from the start, I agree with you. He always projects this way. My guess is that he will try to start a little war that is just big enough to get his voters agitated. He isn’t interested in war at all, only what Fox News says about it. And I think he’s too chicken to start a big war.

      The media reports are that he was given several options and chose the “most radical”. I don’t know what the other options were, but I guess he chose the nastiest and most personal. He doesn’t care about military goals like the Pentagon’s favorites of bombing bridges and power plants. It’s over his head anyway. He just thinks about personal insults to people he considers his peers. So he had a big shot murdered. The good news is he can’t get away with it domestically.

      On the other hand, he wouldn’t bat an eye if a few thousand people got killed to get him re-elected. Or a few tens of thousands. He’d just say it’s fake news and hug an American flag.

      1. And it looks like he is chickening out, as I predicted. Cowardice is Trump’s only redeeming quality.

    3. Ron,

      From someone living outside the U.S, I have to say, Trump is possibly the worst president the U.S have ever had. A megalomaniac, with an IQ of a peanut, and people voted for this to be the in the most powerful position in the world. What does that say about the people voting for this idiot? One has to assume the large portion of the U.S population are of low IQ. Which is not shocking, people around the world have known this for many years. There is segments on the Jay Leno show that showed how dumb Americans are, but it’s dangerous when you give dumb people voting power. One of the failures of ‘democracy’ i guess.

      His reelection will increase the probability of major disasters. He is also probably diverting attention away from his impeachment saga.

      1. Mike, half the population of the US have a below-average IQ and the other half have an above-average IQ, just like every other country in the world. However, it is true that Trump’s base is mostly the poorly educated. That’s why he said, during his campaign: “I love the poorly educated.”

        However, that is not the primary problem. The problem is hate television and hate radio. You would have to live in the US to understand what a brainwashing effect these institutions have, especially on the poorly educated and the naturally less endowed, intelligence wise. Also, the internet has become a powerful tool in the hands of right-wing nutcases who want to paint anyone left of center as equal to the Devil himself.

        We had one blogger, Alex Jones of “Info Wars” that convinced his listeners that the Sandy Hook massacre never happened. That it was a put-up job to get anti-gun legislation passed. Many made hateful calls to the parents of slain children, accusing them of being part of the plot.

        So yes, we have a serious problem. We elected a narcissist idiot as our president. And most of those who voted for him before will vote for him again. Our only hope is, enough of them will not make such a mistake again. He got three million fewer votes than Clinton but still won the electoral college. I think another million voting for the Democrat will do it. Otherwise, the situation is hopeless. I doubt we could possibly survive another four years of Trump.

        1. Yes I’ve seen Alex Jones, that guy needs a group of psychiatrists to study him and medicate him accordingly. Absolute nutjob.

          I think if Bernie Sanders ran instead of Hilary Clinton the democrats might have had more of a chance to beat Trump. He seems like the most level headed person.

          I hope he runs against him in November. He also doesn’t seem like the type of guy capable of being lobbied by big corp.

          2. The Dims lost because they ran Hillary.
            And even she got 3 million more votes than Trump.

          3. “He seems like the most level headed person.”
            “He also doesn’t seem like the type of guy capable of being lobbied by big corp”

            Agree, and I have a sense of kinship with the many of the policies he has represented over the years.
            But I think he would be a huge gamble electorally, simply because
            I am not at all sure he would get more than 40% of the vote in this USA.
            A democrat needs at least 52% of the popular vote, recent history shows us.
            Being considered Old, Socialist and Jewish is not a recipe that has ever worked here, as solo factors, let alone in combination.

            Trump was the oldest person ever to get inaugurated- age 70.
            Bernie would be 79 years.

            I do talk to ‘progressives’ who think the party should swing for the fences (go far left), since Trump has been such a poor president (and human being) in their eyes. They seem to think that whoever they nominate will win.
            I think they are being blind to the perceptions and ‘value’ structure that so many of the republican electorate have. Most trump voters say they will stick with him.

            1. I use to like the Burn, but that tire is worn out. Warren and Sanders are a major far left risk to lose and not realistic on what can get done. Selling an unachievable agenda. The party could use a left of center middle aged women of color. I was disappointed with Harris.

              Maybe Andrew Yang could wear a pantsuit.

            2. I did a quick read on FDR and it appears to me that Bernie is not much more leftist than one of the most revered US presidents, at least as far as Democrats are concerned.

            3. Medicare for all is a slogan and not a cure for the American health care system. Vilifying wealthy Dem’s is also going to lose the prize. Bernie is only a Dem when he can use them for his pipe dream. Republicans are a religious cult from the right controlled by powerful narcissists. The center electorit are looking for something to resemble normal. One in the hand is worth two in the bush.

              Republicans have been unwinding FDR for 60 years on lies. They will chew Bernie up and spit him out with pride. This is not 1932. There is still a chance to save some kind of democracy without civil war. Most Americans are in denial.

            4. Agree HB. Although Yang in a pantsuit is a scary vision.
              Personally, I’d prefer Warren over Sanders, if only because she is a female and a little younger.
              But both are probably too far from the middle to get elected, I suspect.
              I too became quickly disappointed with Harris.

            5. How milquetoast of you.
              I hope it’s Bernie, Warren, Tulsi or Yang. Steyer_the_billionaire seems alright to me as well.
              If Trump manages to duck out on Iran hostilities, he will have done about 1/100th of the nation-wrecking in Muslim lands as what the Obama admin did. There’s still time for Trump to flip that figure, however.

      2. My US sister said today, and this was before the Iranian missile strike this afternoon, that maybe her kids and grandchildren will now want to move on up our way (Vancouver Island). “If ‘they’ institute the draft again to continue on with ME wars, don’t be surprised if they arrive for a protracted visit.”

        My reply, “Why do you think I bought the property”? At the time, 12 years ago, I felt it might be a needed landing base for my own children if things went for shit. Now, it might be for southern relatives.

        If this escalates there WILL NOT be universal rallying around Trump and the Flag. Look for mass protests and unrest. This, I believe, is the beginning of the end for the US in the ME, and may even be more than that. It has been going on for all too long.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

        And if this continues on, will rising oil prices crash the World economy?

        Canadians and Americans of Iranian descent have been stopped at the US border and grilled for hours. They were going shopping, for chrissakes. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/iranian-canadians-detained-interrogated-at-us-border-1.5415782

        In our conversation (with my sister) I did say the US has no allies left beyond KSA and Israel. Canadians I know feel sympathy towards Iran, and none for the US Govt. My wife and I both said, “Those poor kids and their families”…military and civilian. It has just gotten dreadful. Will there be a big retaliation and bombing of Iran? Then watch for missile attacks on KSA and Kuwait, for starters. Then on US warships.

        Anyway folks, I hope we get through this. It could go to hell very very fast. I just don’t see any plausible off-ramps with orange fat boy talking about what the US military is going to do. As I said above, I think they’ll be run out of the ME as more bases come under attack. I apologize, in true Canadian fashion, if my words have offended you. I respect this blog and posters a great deal. However, I am sick of this bullshit and sick of enablers allowing it to continue for the sake of elections, power and money. It has to change.

        regards Paul S

      1. I dont have feelings about TrumpU. I do have some thoughts though. To start, I’m rather surprised people are stupid enough to go to TrumpU. Its always seemed obvious enough that it was a load of shit. I wonder what an alien anthropologist would think about TrumpU and the people that go to it?

    2. In my view, Hyperloop is a solution in search of a problem. The same is true of the magnetic levitation trains developed by the Germans in the 70s but only implemented once, in Shanghai.

      The problem of high speed surface travel was solved by the Japanese bullet trains before in the run-up to the 1962 Olympics.

      The comparison to Theranos is just a political attack on Musk/Tesla, and doesn’t merit further comment.

      1. What I found interesting about many of the American Rail Club videos is the interesting data. i.e. how Japan is able move up to 17,000 people/hr very fast and very safely.
        In terms of the problem that the hyperloop was supposed to be the solution for; well, from what I understand, Musk was stuck in traffic one day and he had a grand vision.

        1. Right, the key to moving people around in densely populated areas is increasing the number of people that fit on a square meter of roadway, not increasing the speed of the conveyance.

          Musk doesn’t seem to grasp that at all.

  15. The eastern US has been getting a glimpse of the future climate. The high temperatures have not been below freezing here for two weeks. Should hit the 50’s, maybe 60F later this week. Been raining occasionally, had an inch of snow last night but it’s melting off already.

    Looks like Norway to Siberia are having heat anomalies too.

    1. Well, Norwegians like to frolic in the ocean in January. Winter sea temperature off Bergan is currently about 8C so if it goes up a bit, say to 20C, might give it a go myself.

    2. The weather in the Carolinas is pretty nice, temperature-wise, but I believe that the lack of a deep freeze might bring pests northward. I have trouble understanding how anybody can look at recent weather and dismiss it as unremarkable and non-indicative of AGW. Hurricanes Matthew and especially Florence were unlike anything I’ve ever experienced in my 42 years.

      1. I can see how this warm weather represents possible global warming, but most people prefer to experience a pleasant winter, so they don’t think much about it beyond how comfortable they are.

        1. When they are hiding in their homes hoping the grid doesn’t go down in the summer, so the air conditioning keeps running, it will be a different story.

    1. “”This will become completely unsustainable by 2040,” Andrae wrote.”

      Essentially modeling the global civilization. Unsustainable by the 2030’s, fraying at the edges now.

  17. In the long run, CO2 (global warming) will be seen as much smaller problem than overpopulation, I suspect.
    Its kind a of a false argument however, since the two are so interrelated.
    We probably couldn’t have had more than 2 billion people, and therefore could not have had the shear numbers and tools to destroy the natural habitats of earth so extensively, without having had all this fossil carbon to burn.

    Both carbon burning and population will be peaking out soon.
    Estimates are for-
    Peak coal by 2030
    Peak oil in the 2020’s
    Peak Nat Gas-in the 2030’s
    all with slow decline thereafter
    Peak Atmospheric CO2- second half 21st century
    Global population- 10 to 11 billion late 21st century (assuming good behavior and pleasant times)

    Beyond 2100, barring a combination of techno energy miracles and extremely rapid evolution of human behavior, the population will be declining.
    How far, how quickly?- no one knows.
    Will human capacity to destroy the biosphere decline with declining population?
    Not necessarily.
    Eventually, maybe 50 or 100,000 years on, there will be another big glaciation event.
    Unless our grand atmospheric chemistry experiment results in severe gyrations that brings one on more quickly. Possibly.

    wild card- methane, virus

    1. Global population- 10 to 11 billion late 21st century…

      Naw, we will never make that. Peak population will be 9+ billion before 2050 and a downturn after that. The downturn in population will be caused by the four horsemen, famine, disease, pestilence, and war. But mostly famine and war.

      1. I was using the conventional published growth estimates for the population projection. I too, find them very optimistic. Best case (if you consider it to be good) scenario.
        I’d add to the 4 horseman a fifth- simple lack of energy to run all the systems we rely on. People will be at big risk for death in heat waves, for example.

      2. Agree Ron–
        But I think it will be sooner.
        But I have been wrong before.

      3. So, I guess y’all aren’t on the same page as Pat Buchanan then. He foresees a human extinction event on the horizon, but not the extinction event you’re looking for.

        “The Death of the West is not a prediction of what is going to happen. It is a depiction of what is happening now. First World nations are dying. They face a mortal crisis, not because of something happening in the Third World, but because of what is not happening at home and in the homes of the First World. Western fertility rates have been falling for decades. Outside of Muslim Albania, no European nation is producing enough babies to replace its population. … In a score of countries the old are already dying off faster than the young are being born. … There is no sign of a turnaround. Now the absolute numbers of Europeans have begun to fall.”

        https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/our-real-existential-crisis-extinction/

        It was at least somewhat encouraging to see that the commentariat wasn’t, overall, buying it.

        1. Well Bob, that is not exactly what Pat Buchanan is saying:

          For many First World countries, there are more compelling concerns. High among them is population decline, and, if birth rates do not rise, the near-extinction of many Western peoples by this century’s end.

          He doesn’t say extinction, he says near-extinction. And for first world countries only. Third world countries, like all those in Africa and many in Asia, will just keep on multiplying like rabbits.

          But by century’s end no less. That is absurd. Even at the current below replacement rate, the population of first world countries will be only slightly lower than it is today. Perhaps lower by 20% if that.

          But Pat Buchanan is, and always has been, a right-wing nutcase. He has the typical right-wing mindset that the world is made for people and not animals. And therefore we should keep multiplying until we are the only species of megafauna left on earth.

  18. For those interested in reality, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not only continued to rise over the past 10 years, but it is also now rising at a faster rate than ever before (during the last decade atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by roughly 25 parts per million). Meanwhile:

    AVERAGE CO2 EMISSIONS OF CARS SOLD IN UK UP FOR THIRD YEAR IN ROW

    Average CO2 emissions rose for the third year in a row, up 2.7% year on year to 127.9g of CO2 per kilometre, according to data from the car industry body. This is far above the newly introduced EU target of 95g per kilometre carmakers need to achieve over this year and next for all new cars. Cars account for just over 18% of UK emissions, according to government figures.

    Not to be outdone, automakers in the US sold 17.05 million new cars, trucks and SUVs in 2019. Following a long trend, 69% of new vehicles sold last year were trucks or SUVs, with truck sales up 2.6% from a year ago.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/06/uk-car-sales-brexit-diesel-electric-vehicles-emissions

    1. Really? CO2/car/km is mostly meaningless if a realistic effort is being made to achieve an electric fleet and a renewable energy grid. If the number of cars burning hydrocarbons is falling then the total is dropping. Also, if the vehicles are not driven very far, the amount of CO2 exuded is small. All this analysis is for a growth economy with growing population that has access to personal vehicles. That won’t hold much longer.

      From the article Doug posted.
      “The other half of the headline CO2 increase was caused by a change to testing standards.”
      “Annual sales of alternatively fuelled vehicles rose by 20.6% to a record market share of 7.4%. That was driven by the surge in battery electric sales, which were up by 144%.”

      UK car registrations fell for the third consecutive year in 2019, dropping 2.3% to 2.3 million cars according to preliminary figures released by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT). Following 2016’s high, registrations have now fallen 7.5% – the equivalent of 580,000 registrations across the year
      https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/new-car-registrations-fall-third-consecutive-year

      Looks like motor vehicles are doubling in GB every 43 years. Similar rate in the US. Should not be a big deal to halt and reverse the rise.
      However, attempts will be made to continue the impossible. Failing to cooperate will be the best bet.

      1. Virginia’s vehicle inspections are strict AF. Governor Northam wants to get rid of them altogether which would put Virginia with the likes of most southern states, like South Carolina or Tennessee.

      2. UK petroleum product consumption has fallen by 12 percent since 2006 despite increasing population.

  19. The strange inverted fossil fuel driven system of agriculture.

    Holy cow: Walking consumes more gasoline than driving!

    You can see where this is going. I’m not the first to figure it out, but it’s worth repeating. Your 3 mile walk burned 220 extra Calories over sitting, but drove the use of 2,200 Calories of fossil fuel. That’s 1/14th of a gallon of gasoline (9oz.) So you’re getting about 42 miles per gas-gallon of fossil fuel.

    If you eat a lot of beef or other livestock, and want to consider your incremental food as having come from beef, it’s around 10 miles per gallon. A Hummer does better!

    So yes, if you drive your Prius instead of walking it’s going to burn less fossil fuel. If 2 people drive in a more ordinary car it’s going to burn less fossil fuel than both of them walking.

    Biking’s better. The average-diet cyclist is getting 85 miles per gallon of fossil fuel. Still better for 2 to share a Prius. The beefeater is, as before only 1/4 as good. At 21mpg he’s better than a Hummer, but not that much better.

    https://ideas.4brad.com/holy-cow-walking-consumes-more-gasoline-driving

  20. If unconfirmed social media reports that have blamed this on an electric vehicle catching fire are confirmed, this fire won’t be a great ad for EVs in Norway — at least in Stavanger. 😉

    RAGING FIRE SHUTS AIRPORT IN STAVANGER

    “As of now we’ve had a partial collapse,” Heggen told Norwegian Broadcasting shortly after 6pm. By 7pm, the situation inside the garage was so dangerous that no firefighters were allowed inside. Heggen’s crews lacked control over the blaze, which involved “open flames and lots of smoke,” and could only fight it with hoses from outside the structure. As the fire spread in the garage, explosions could be heard as parked cars’ fuel tanks blew up from the heat. Heggen confirmed Tuesday evening that more than 300 cars were already destroyed.”

    https://www.newsinenglish.no/2020/01/07/raging-fire-shuts-stavangers-airport/

    2. a day later, the news is “an older diesel car”

      https://www.newsinenglish.no/2020/01/08/raging-fire-shuts-stavangers-airport/

      This says 2005 Opel Zafira, which came/comes in either diesel or petrol.

      https://insideevs.com/news/392047/bloomberg-ev-fire-cause-diesel/

      A history of fires with this mini-van like vehicle.

      https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/watch-dramatic-moment-opel-goes-on-fire-in-cork-meaning-zafira-models-may-be-recalled-34153127.html

      Using google translate on this:
      https://www.motor.no/artikler/brann-pa-sola-startet-i-en-opel-zafira/

      The owner of the Zafira started it after coming home, and smoke starts pouring out. Then the owner gets someone to call the fire department.

  21. The world will add 142 GW of new solar this year

    IHS Markit has predicted another year of global solar growth but a peek behind the headline figures shows uncertainty dogging the markets of China and India, two of the most important markets and biggest polluters.

    Spain is set to do more heavy lifting as Europe’s solar renaissance continues – albeit at a much slower pace – in 2020.

    Business intelligence company IHS Markit’s solar predictions for this year may be accompanied by a press release emphasizing the positives but the expectation spelled out is very much a question of glass half full or half empty.

    The 2020 Global Photovoltaic Demand Forecast published today foresees a 14% rise in the amount of new solar generation capacity expected this year compared to last year’s returns, with IHS predicting 142 GW of new solar will be rolled out in 2020.

    However, with the forecast resorting to comparing the prediction to the figures recorded a decade ago, a glance at the individual market expectations indicates continuing uncertainty in the world’s biggest solar market, a dramatic slowdown after an impressive 2019 in Europe and a resumption of activity in India which will nevertheless leave the populous nation a mountain to climb to hit its 2022 solar ambition.

    1. Meanwhile, gas production soared in the US (+11.5%), the largest gas producer accounting for 45% of the worldwide increase, pushed by recent developments in Permian Basin and Haynesville Shale formations and by domestic consumption. Shale gas in the US now accounts for around 70% of the country’s gas production. Gas production surged in Russia (+6.7% in 2018), spurred by a strong growth in domestic demand, and in Iran, following the start-up of new phases in the South Pars fields projects. Australia’s gas production continued to ramp up (+15%) thanks to the commissioning of new LNG trains in 2017 and 2018. Gas production grew at a very fast pace (+20%) in Egypt, as new phases of the West Nile Delta project are started up. In Europe, gas production continued to fall (-15%) as the Netherlands is cutting national output.

      https://yearbook.enerdata.net/natural-gas/world-natural-gas-production-statistics.html

    2. Global energy growth is outpacing decarbonization
      Despite positive progress in∼19 countries whose economies have grown over the last decade and their emissions have declined, growth in energy use from fossil-fuel sources is still outpacing the rise of low-carbon sources and activities.
      ————-
      A robust global economy, insufficient emission reductions in developed countries, and a need for increased energy use in developing countries where per capita emissions remain far below those of wealthier nations will continue to put upward pressure on CO2 emissions.
      https://jacksonlab.stanford.edu/publication/global-energy-growth-outpacing-decarbonization

      Demand for all fuels increased, with fossil fuels meeting nearly 70% of the growth for the second year running. Solar and wind generation grew at double-digit pace, with solar alone increasing by 31%. Still, that was not fast enough to meet higher electricity demand around the world that also drove up coal use.

      As a result, global energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 1.7% to 33 Gigatonnes (Gt) in 2018. Coal use in power generation alone surpassed 10 Gt, accounting for a third of total emissions. Most of that came from a young fleet of coal power plants in developing Asia

      Electricity continues to position itself as the “fuel” of the future, with global electricity demand growing by 4% in 2018 to more than 23 000 TWh.

      https://www.iea.org/news/global-energy-demand-rose-by-23-in-2018-its-fastest-pace-in-the-last-decade

      Wind and PV have a lot of catching up to do just to meet the rise in energy demand, let alone replace some fossil fuel
      Of course that is ignoring the amount of energy needed to build out that rise, but who needs details like that? It’s all magical, right?

      When are they ever going to learn?

      1. I like windmills. They’re cool looking. But, you have to build a grid. It’s hard to tell poor countries (where people don’t have water) what to do. It’s offensive, to be honest. They need *some* energy, so they don’t die.

        1. Maybe the poor countries should concentrate on clean water and good soil. Without those the rest is meaningless.

      2. Gonefishing,

        Focusing on Solar and the 4 year energy payback estimate by NREL, if we assume 30% growth in solar PV from 2018 to 2023, and every 5 years growth rate steps down by 5% (25%, 20%, 15%, 10%) and also assume World electricity use continues to grow at 2.5% per year up to 2045, then in 2045, 67% of electricity would be provided by solar PV that has already paid back its embodied energy (I assume 30 year life for PV panels). In 2018, fossil fuels were used to produce 65% of all electricity output. Clearly this leaves out other types of energy use, but that may be able to transition to electricity and total energy use will fall due to elimination of much of the waste heat in the system (about 60% of fossil fuel use ends up as waste heat).

        No magic needed, just a gradual transition to less environmentally damaging ways of doing things, of course the best method is to simply reduce wasteful energy use and use less, on that we might agree.

        Maybe not.

        1. Twisting my words Dennis. The magic is in the accounting or more appropriately the no-accounting.
          Nice to build out 120 billion solar panels to run the electric grid of the future, but that takes energy, as do all the battery backup, inverters, new grid systems, smart systems, etc.
          Where will we get that extra 5 to 10 percent of global energy to build out all that PV and accessories each year. If the PV is doing it then what is civilization running on? Especially in a descending fossil energy world?
          There are going to have to be major intrinsic changes to society and it’s energy use. The old game is over, it needs to be supplanted with major structural changes at the cultural and societal level.
          Trying to chase a growing energy and population system with just a different form of BAU is a fool’s game. It will never be enough and it will run against other limits long before it is completed. We are up against it and need to apply drastic changes now and into the future, not slow ones, if we actually want success.

          BTW, I have previously commented that society could run on much lower energy (partly due to efficiency of electric motors), however I think we need to aim at 10 percent or less of todays energy use if we want to have a chance at a living planet. Less damage is still damage.

  22. islandboy, data for your trusty spreadsheet. ?

    AUSTRALIAN EMISSIONS RISE AS LNG PRODUCTION SOARS

    “Greenhouse gas emissions rose 0.6% to 538.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) from the previous year, mainly due to a 19% rise in LNG exports and growth in steel and aluminium production, the government said in a quarterly greenhouse gas update. LNG output added 4.7 million tonnes CO2-e, more than offsetting a 2.1% drop in emissions from the electricity sector, the biggest source of carbon emissions, as the growth of wind and solar power has reduced the use of dirty coal.”

    https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/08/30/australian-emissions-rise-lng-production-soars/

  23. Meanwhile:

    Reduced coal generation drove (US) power sector greenhouse emissions down 10% in 2019, report says

    Dive Insight:

    Though carbon emissions from the power sector rose slightly in 2018, a continued trend of declining coal power led to improved results in 2019. Natural gas replaced the majority of the lost generating capacity from coal, adding around 40 million metric tons of carbon emissions to the sector. But coal retirements cut emissions by 190 million metric tons, creating a net decrease of 150 million metric tons in the power sector.

    Meanwhile, mass coal plant retirements between 2005 and 2016 saved an estimated 26,610 lives, 570 million bushels of corn, wheat and soybeans, and reduced regional climate impacts, according to the UCSD report. Smog-causing pollutants such as sulfur and nitrogen, as well as carbon monoxide and heavy metals are some of the “short-lived climate pollutants,” that don’t necessarily stay in the atmosphere but instead linger regionally, and are specific to coal power, the report noted.

    1. Don’t look behind the curtain! Narrowing the frame and not accounting for the whole system is just propaganda.
      Conveniently forgetting the methane leakage in the system preceding all those new gas power plants makes the numbers look much better than they really are. Much better.

      Of course we never account for all that buildout of natural gas drilling, pipelines, storage facilities, manufacturing of equipment, fracking materials, new power plants, etc to replace all that extra coal mining and counter the increasing demand for power. That too is all behind the curtain.

      All the mining, smelting, manufacturing, distribution, installation, auxiliary equipment for PV and wind are all behind the curtain too.
      It’s all rosy and good, yet the coal mining is on the increase and the natural gas production is skyrocketing. While the animals and plants burn and die or are purposely killed by the trillion.
      Meanwhile, the permafrost is being tapped for methane too and the Arctic is the new playground for the fossil fuel and mining industry.

      1. “All the mining, smelting, manufacturing, distribution, installation, auxiliary equipment for PV and wind are all behind the curtain too.”

        Shame on you. Don’t you realize that along with hydro power, PV and wind are the new Sacred Cows?

        1. Yeah, I am a thorn in the side of the propaganda balloon.
          BTW, I was nice and left out EV’s this time.

          Has anyone thought about why we need all that power and all that stuff just to live? Of course I made coffee this morning, that must be it. We need coffee.

          1. “Has anyone thought about why we need all that power and all that stuff just to live?”

            I thought it was to power air cons in our rapidly worming world.

            1. Yes, I am sure you need lots of air conditioning in BC and Norway. I say coffee and chocolate are more important. We have lots of nuts so need to worry about that supply. 🙂

              Things have gone too far to be reticent anymore. The purposeful extermination of life on this planet must be stopped at all costs.
              “rapidly worming world” Good one.
              I hear the worms are not doing well in many places.

          2. That coffee you made was fair trade and in a biodegradable container, right? Right???

            1. I grew coffee in Maui.
              Not that hard to grow with the right climate, but a real hassle to process.
              I’m surprised it can be sold as cheaply as it is.
              But no containers.

            2. “That coffee you made was fair trade and in a biodegradable container, right? Right???”

              Do you mean a tree was cut down to contain the coffee and traded using that fairy tale oxymoron “sustainable development”?

              Got it for free for being a wonderful person, just heated some water to make the coffee, didn’t grow, harvest, process, sell or ship the beans.

      2. Gone fishing,

        The energy payback calculations take that into account, no?

        1. Payback of what, taking which into account? More specificity please.

          1. Gonefishing,

            You said:

            All the mining, smelting, manufacturing, distribution, installation, auxiliary equipment for PV and wind are all behind the curtain too.

            For PV specifically NREL says

            Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2,
            and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and
            1 year for anticipated thin-film modules (see Figure 1).

            https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

            So the question was about energy payback, I believe these analyses include the stuff behind the curtain.

            1. If someone drives less, say half, that saves say 250 gallons of gasoline a year. If they ride share, maybe another 100 gallons. If they insulate and seal up their house, maybe another 200 to 400 gallons equivalent per year. That car and that furnace last a lot longer cutting down the need for replacements. If they cut out meat and dairy, 300 gallons equivalent per year per person.
              Repair instead of replace. Buy nothing unnecessary. Live with those older clothes and older furniture, computers, phones, cameras, etc. Stop all that streaming entertainment and start interacting with real people (yes, they can be irritating, but then again so are you (not Dennis personally).
              Show BAU you won’t stand for it anymore. In other words live like a lot of people already do.

              If someone has 10 kilowatts of PV installed on a house, most of the money goes right back into BAU with less than 25% going to solar panel cost. How much of that makes it back to the factory to build more panels, I don’t know.
              So what are people really doing with all that money, pushing BAU mostly (and near slave labor conditions). A solar installation company might spend 20 percent on marketing alone.

              https://solaractionalliance.org/residential-solar-panel-cost/
              https://www.sunrun.com/solar-lease/cost-of-solar
              $300 per year for cleanings?
              And then what had to be done to make that money? Why lots more BAU on steroids of course and a bunch goes to the government to do who knows what.
              It’s catch 22 all the way down. We are mostly boxed in, time for a sit down strike or at least a slowdown.

              Maybe all that shipping and shopping is no good either. One billion trees die each year just for the packaging for our shipping needs.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebjhwx4zZfA

              Yep, PV and wind power will advance, it’s been decided. How fast and how far, we don’t know. How much sense it makes, we might find out. Not many alternatives except getting off the hamster wheel and figuring out how to live in a dying world.
              For sure the extermination will continue, stopping is not really on the agenda.
              Happy warm and silent world.

  24. BILLIONS IN WORTHLESS ASSETS PLAGUE THE OIL & GAS INDUSTRY

    “We can’t have a financial sector that ignores an issue, and then all of a sudden has to deal with it,” Mark Carney, the outgoing Governor of the Bank of England, said in a recent interview with BBC. Carney is referring to the fact that current plans by fossil fuel companies, and investors who own assets in those companies, are to continue on a path that puts the world on a trajectory of 3.7-3.8 degrees of warming, “far above the 1.5 degrees that governments say they want and that people are demanding.”

    https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/billions-worthless-assets-plague-oil-gas-industry

    1. Meanwhile, if this crisis doesn’t wake up the world, what will?

      VICTORIA EXTENDS ‘STATE OF DISASTER’ AS THREAT INTENSIFIES

      “Despite a national bushfire crisis raging since September, the south-eastern state is only entering what is considered to be its worst fire months. Blazes have already burnt 1.2 million hectares in Victoria and claimed three lives. Nationally, 27 people have died. The danger is predicted to be greatest on Friday due to hot, volatile weather.”

      https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51043076

      2. Even without climate change these fires will continue getting worse and worse if the current landscape management continues. So much could be accomplished by seriously investing into managing the landscapes to be less fire prone by helping to keep it hydrated and by managing the fuel load using chain saws and herbivores.

        Australians have been the pioneers in so many techniques to hydrate ecosystem. The next step is to implement them on a continent wide scale.

        The permaculture folks have developed a number of techniques to infiltrate and store moisture during the rainy season using earthworks like keylines berms ponds dams and irrigation systems.
        Another issue is the massive buildup of biomass that becomes fuel during the dry season. Eucalyptus trees are a exceptional fire hazard. Part of the solution to this is to thin out the trees and convert fire prone forests into savannas and manage the fuel build up with herbivores like cattle goats sheep camels and of course roos and rabbits. Domestic livestock need to have their grazing managed to maximize the health of the grass and to keep the soil covered to prevent evaporation and to hold the water and soak it into the soil when it does rain.
        Prescribed burning is a great tool in the short term in a desperate situation but as more land comes under long term holistic management the tool of prescribed fire would seldom have to be used.

  25. Some food for thought or, where is Steve when you need him?

    A NEW GOLD STANDARD: ORDERLY OR CHAOTIC?

    “China is not alone in its efforts to achieve creditor status and to acquire gold. Russia has greatly increased its gold reserves over the past several years and has little external debt. The move to accumulate gold in Russia is no secret, and as Putin advisor, Sergey Glazyev told Russian Insider has said, “The ruble is the most gold-backed currency in the world.” Iran has also imported massive amounts of gold, mostly through Turkey and Dubai, although no one knows the exact amount, because Iranian gold imports are a state secret. Other countries, including BRICS members Brazil, India and South Africa, have joined Russia and China in their desire to break free of U.S. dollar dominance. Sterling faced a single rival in 1914, the U.S. dollar. Today, the dollar faces a host of rivals. The decline of the dollar as a reserve currency started in 2000 with the advent of the euro and accelerated in 2010 with the beginning of a new currency war. The dollar collapse has already begun and the need for a new monetary order will need to emerge. The question is whether it will be an orderly process resulting from a new monetary conference, or a chaotic one.”

    https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/new-gold-standard-orderly-or-chaotic

    1. Yes, gold has the atomic number 79, which proves it was chosen by God to be a store of value superior to all other substances. 79 is God’s favorite number.

      1. Stupid comment. I was looking for intelligent comments! The topic is Reserve Currency as in a means of international payment and to support the value of national currencies.

        1. I don’t think there is a dollar collapse. Not basically or realistically. There is a net energy collapse and an increasing cost of maintenance due to climate change which is slowing all economies. There is also an ongoing collapse of agriculture, heavily supported by that very energy that is losing net value. As that support fails, money will lose value quickly, globally.
          Both of these things can be modified and extended but until civilization in general changes it’s energy hungry operating system, all value will descend toward zero since energy will become the dominant form of exchange and that will be less available per capita.
          The energy space of solar driven renewables is quite large now, but it is rate limited so if there is a long run, it too will act like gold, limiting the monetary supply.
          Climate change, soil loss, etc. will dig into all that value and cost, soaking up much of societal energy just to try and maintain status quo or limit the descent. Collapse is guaranteed, controlled or uncontrolled is up to us.

          The ascent of industrial civilization was built upon a vast excess of available energy that we refused to realistically include in our economics. Once reality strikes, it will strike hard and the virtual economics we now have will disintegrate. That and the other Horsemen are arriving.

  27. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/where-have-all-the-children-gone/594133/

    Consider that the Atlantic is one of the very best of the widely read, widely respected periodicals edited for the well educated citizen. Consider that the Atlantic generally tells it like it is when the discussion is about climate, water, other natural resources, etc.

    And then think about the fact that The Atlantic continues to run articles like the one in this link……… an article that makes not even the slightest nod toward even considering the fact that eternal economic growth, eternal population growth, is even possible.

    Not even a single line in this piece is devoted to consideration of the positive aspects of population peaking and declining.

    It’s VERY hard to refute the arguments made by Ron and Doug, maybe it’s impossible.

    But I still think that there’s a real possibility that some pockets of modern industrial civilization will survive here and there. I still think there’s a real possibility that collapse will be piecemeal over space and time, that there’s actually a strong likelihood collapse will play out this way.

    We are living in interesting times.

Comments are closed.