183 Responses to Open Thread-Non-Petroleum, Feb 9, 2017

  1. Duncan Idaho says:

    Will the Dims ever learn?

    Tom Perez Apologizes for Telling the Truth, Showing Why Democrats’ Flaws Urgently Need Attention
    https://theintercept.com/2017/02/09/tom-perez-apologizes-for-telling-the-truth-showing-why-democrats-flaws-urgently-need-attention/

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      I was just fixing to copy almost the whole link Duncan just posted, because it shows WHY so many people who are loyal Democrats wanted Sanders in and Clinton out, as the D candidate for president.

      But I will just point out some of the highlights, and point out that the other party running a scumbag does not justify your own party running a fatally flawed candidate.

      Here’s HB’s comment from the last petroleum open thread. I try to give credit where credit’s due, and HB has definitely got some facts on his side in this particular comment.

      You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to be in Wall Street’s pocket. Perfectly true. Clinton WAS in Wall Street’s pocket. Trump IS Wall Street.

      But I didn’t vote for Trump.

      “Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and eliminate the Fiduciary Rule, letting Wall Street return to its pre-2008 ways.”
      True , but let’s not overlook the obvious fact that Clinton is or was in Wall Street’s vest pocket herself.

      “You voted for Trump because of Clinton’s emails. The Trump administration is running its own private email server.”

      I haven’t yet heard about it, but I am willing to believe it, lol. I always said Trump would be worse than Clinton. But I didn’t vote for Trump.

      “You voted for Trump because you thought the Clinton Foundation was “pay for play.” Trump has refused to wall off his businesses from his administration, and personally profits from payments from foreign governments.”

      I have good reason to believe the Clinton Foundation was a pay for play operation, and the recent crash in donations is ample evidence that this is so. But HB is dead on about the ethical and CRIMINAL shortcomings of the Trumpsters. But I didn’t vote for Trump.

      “You voted for Trump because of Clinton’s role in Benghazi. Trump ordered the Yemen raid without adequate intel, and tweeted about “FAKE NEWS” while Americans died as a result of his carelessness.”

      I think maybe HB is in the ten ring on this one. But I didn’t vote for Trump.

      “You voted for Trump because Clinton didn’t care about “the little guy.” Trump’s cabinet is full of billionaires, and he took away your health insurance so he could give them a multi-million-dollar tax break. ”

      Clinton doesn’t give a shit about the little guy, she hangs out with the one percent of the one percenters , and couldn’t even find time to say hello to working people, which is the ONE best single reason she lost.

      It’s true about Trump’s cabinet, but all recent administrations have basically been the bought and paid for property of the one percent of the one percenters. And the health care he is trying to take away was a great idea, but the method of financing it selected by the D’s that wrote it was a totally insane fucking disaster for the D’s, who were mostly insulated from having to pay for it, compared to the R’s . A few days back about thirteen D senators helped the R’s block a Sanders bill that would have forced big pharma to sell drugs to USA citizens for the same LOWER prices they charge other people in other countries.

      But I didn’t vote for Trump, and I always said he would be worse.

      You voted for Trump because he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. American consumers will pay for the wall via import tariffs. Some people did vote for him because of the proposed wall, true. About the tariffs, maybe. HB’s point for sure though.

      “You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to get us into a war. Trump has provoked our enemies, alienated our allies, and given ISIS a decade’s worth of recruiting material.” True, but I didn’t vote for Trump.

      “You voted for Trump because Clinton didn’t have the stamina to do the job. Trump hung up on the Australian Prime Minister during a 5pm phone call because “it was at the end of a long day and he was tired and fatigue was setting in.”

      I don’t think a lot of people took HRC’s supposed health issues too seriously, but still a point for HB.

      “You voted for Trump because foreign leaders wouldn’t “respect” Clinton. Foreign leaders, both friendly and hostile, are openly mocking Trump.” Dead on.

      “You voted for Trump because Clinton lies and “he tells it like it is.” Trump and his administration lie with a regularity and brazenness that can only be described as shocking.”

      True.
      Let’s be honest about what really happened.

      The reality is that you voted for Trump because you got conned.

      But I didn’t vote for Trump.

      I voted Green, myself, believing my state was safe for Clinton, which she won.

      Now here are some of the reasons I wanted Sanders as the D candidate, and why Clinton was so heartily disliked by so many voters.

      http://observer.com/2017/02/dnc-chair-candidate-tom-perez-admits-democratic-primaries-rigged/

      Here are some excerpts.

      On February 8, while campaigning to become the next DNC chair, the establishment favorite, former Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, slipped up by making a much needed admission: the Democratic primaries were rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton.

      Perez stated, “We heard loudly and clearly yesterday from Bernie supporters that the process was rigged, and it was. And you’ve got to be honest about it. That’s why we need a chair who is transparent.”

      The leaked DNC emails released by Wikileaks confirmed suspicions that the DNC was overtly tipping the scales for Clinton. But even before the leaks, the bias was obvious. When Sen. Bernie Sanders emerged as a viable challenger to Clinton in late 2015, former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz rescinded a ban on donations from lobbyists and PACs. This rule change paved the way for the establishment of the Hillary Victory Fund, which Politico uncovered was laundering money to the Clinton campaign under the false pretenses of fundraising for state Democratic Parties. Without this rule change, the Clinton campaign would have been outpaced by the Sanders campaign in fundraising.

      Sanders’ supporters also criticized the Democratic primary debate schedule for benefitting Clinton. An email leaked from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta confirmed their suspicions that the debates were scheduled to favor Hillary Clinton.

      Additionally, the system of super delegates was established to provide the illusion that the Democratic establishment held more power within the Democratic primaries than it actually did. The mainstream media inflated Clinton’s lead using super delegates, whose endorsements for Clinton were treated as a way for the Democratic Party to tell its supporters who to vote for. The small number of super delegates supporting Bernie Sanders portrayed the image that Sanders’ didn’t have a chance at winning the nomination, despite the results from voters suggesting otherwise.

      After DNC emails were leaked, Debbie Wasserman Schultz—along with several other top DNC staffers—resigned in embarrassment because they overtly violated Article 5 Section 4 of the DNC Charter, which demands neutrality from DNC staff.

      Currently serving as DNC interim chair, former DNC vice chair, Donna Brazile was fired from CNN after leaked emails confirmed Brazile helped the Clinton campaign cheat before debates. Nevertheless, the Democratic establishment provided Brazile with impunity—as they tend to do with all instances of corruption that benefit the status quo.

      Trump’s faults don’t excuse Clinton’s faults. We should expect and demand better from the D party.

      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        Hillary Clinton felt no need to issue a long-winded statement following the unanimous decision by a three-judge panel

        Instead, the former secretary of state kept things short and sweet, tweeting simply

        “3-0.”

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-reaction-travel-ban-ruling_us_589d0fc1e4b094a129e9a0a7?section=us_politics

        OldMacDonald, there’s a lot HRC could teach you about keeping a comment simple and direct.

        • Duncan Idaho says:

          But OFM doesn’t (well, when “pay to play” was in effect) for getting 250K for a 45 minute speech to GS.

          • HuntingtonBeach says:

            That’s the system, then make a regulation to make it illegal. OldMacDonald spews comment after comment for free. You get what you pay for.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Hi HB,

          At least this time you haven’t called me a Trumpster or a Republican, both of which are fightin’ words in my case.

          You are going to be hard put to argue that I haven’t said so when you are right, and the evidence is clear and objective that you are right.

          Now maybe it’s getting around to the time within the next year or two for you to admit I’m right once in a while too.

          And as far as the Ninth giving the Trumpsters a three oh straight finger is concerned, I’m tickled pink.

          Here’s a link to that will set the record straight about Ninth Circuit and SCOTUS reversals and dismissals. The Ninth is only a little above average by either measure, and it IS one of the Circuits which is more apt to accept cases which are environmentally or socially debatable, which means more controversy than other circuits.

          http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/

          I am rather confident that the SC is going to take a rather dim view of just about anything the Trumpsters are most apt to try to do.

          And hopefully there are enough decent Republicans in the Senate to keep Trump from succeeding in putting a real right winger in the vacant seat, but that’s merely hopeful, not confident.

          Judges are extraordinarily determined to preserve their own power, and the power of the judicial system as a whole, and not easily bought, but it’s hard to know just how any particular judge will rule, if he or she is once on the SC, because at that level, he or she can relax a little in terms of worrying about reversals, and vote his or her personal convictions in respect to what the law IS, or OUGHT to be, so long as his or her decisions are consistent with the principles of precedent and the words of the Constitution.

          It’s extremely unlikely that a court as nearly evenly divided as at present will overturn any previous SC decisions, except maybe on very narrow grounds.

          Now as far as being BRIEF, well, it takes a lot of words to explain things in detail, but only a few to do sound bites.

          Look how many words it took the Snopes author to explain the actual facts about Ninth Circuit court decisions being reversed and vacated , PLUS a number of charts.

          A real understanding of any complex issue necessarily involves devoting some time to nuance and detail. Otherwise you are just taking somebody’s word for what’s what, rather than thinking for yourself.

          Two of my primary goals are to provoke thought and to provoke responses that help me eliminate blind spots and or factual errors in my own thinking.

          I want to be known as a writer who gets his facts straight, or in case the facts are disputable, makes strong arguments for his own personal interpretations of the facts. I don’t give a crap about who likes me , or doesn’t at this time. Later on, I intend to be able to point out where I am on record as being RIGHT on the facts.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            I just had a great idea for a reality TV show…

            Trump vs The US Constitution. Today, live from Mar a Lago, The Execuuutive vs The Judiciary! Last week’s score, Exec, Big Fat Zero, Judges Thuuureeee!

            Oh never mind the FAKE reality could never compete with the REAL reality…

            Maybe Trump should take some time away from his tweeting and sit down and actually read the constitution that he supposedly swore to defend and uphold when he took his oath of office!

          • HuntingtonBeach says:

            OldMacDonald Says – “You are going to be hard put to argue that I haven’t said so when you are right, and the evidence is clear and objective that you are right”

            OldMacDonald, anyone with half a brain(that eliminates Trump Republicans) knew by mid March of last year HRC was going to be the Democrat nominee. But you with your lack of political wisdom found it necessary to bash HRC with more than 90% of your political comments right up to the election. Just like a climate denier who rails against EV’s.

            Your actions and actions of others just like you are directly responsible for president Trump.

            Man up

            • Nathanael says:

              Anyone who’d studied politics competently knew that HRC was a loser candidate who was gonna lose. Regardless of how good she’d be as an administrator or on policy, she was just a crummy loser as a campaigner.

              I campaigned for Bernie in the primary, and when he lost, I said “Right, the Republicans just won the Presidential election”, and thought about other things for most of the remaining months. Ignoring the general election and making lots of money in the stock market instead seems to have been a good choice.

              Anyone who campaigned for HRC in the primary is responsible for President Trump. Man up.

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              You’re still in denial.
              Adults take responsibility for their own mistakes.

              I’ve posted quite a few links already about top dog Democrats acknowledging that Clinton ran a LOUSY campaign.

              Hey my delusional little doggie, she managed to lose to TRUMP, a candidate cordially hated by the R party itself.

              If she had had sense enough, and just a touch of humility, rather than seeing herself as Empress to be coronated, and bothered to just fucking SHOW UP ONCE OR TWICE in the Rust Belt states, rather than spending so much time with the banksters, she would be president today.

              It was NEVER clear that she would be the nominee, but considering her control of the party machinery, and the support of a lot of the press, etc, plus Sanders late start and lack of organization at the beginning, if the nominating process had been HONESTY and impartially administered Sanders might well have won.

              Your little princess had to go back on her words, and oh MY, how MANY times has she changed her tune when it suited her over the years, and go with the big money dogs in order to raise more money that Sanders did.

              The upstart from nowhere , in practical terms, kicked her ASS in terms of support from ACTUAL DEMOCRATIC VOTERS. She won the nomination on the very thing she has bitched about forever- until it suited HER- namely BIG MONEY DONORS.

              And you still haven’t taken me up on my offer to go thru some of her scandals , but I haven’t forgotten my promise that so long as you keep blaming the HRC’s losing on little guys like me,I will keep on posting hard evidence that she was and remains ethically unqualified, and that she lacks the JUDGMENT needed to win an election, never mind to be the head of the government.

              I mean, HOW STUPID AND ARROGANT can you GET, taking millions for making secret speeches to banksters, while running as the candidate of the party of the people?

              It’s not like she was broke, ya know. The family slush fund was already into the hundreds of millions IIRC. Her house cost more than everything Sanders and his wife owned put together, but she sicced her lying dogs on him accusing him of selling out to get a deal on property.

              It’s nice and sunny, a very pleasant day outside here, and I’ve been out most of the day, and I’m going out again in a few minutes, but later this evening, I will post some NASTY little details about Cattle Gate.

              Here’s the wikipedia link.

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

    • Coffeeguyzz says:

      This is completely offtopic, but, at 6:00 PM PST, the emergency spillway at the Oroville dam – bout 100 miles NE of SF – is in the process of collapsing.
      Reports of an immediate 30 foot drop in water from a HUGE reservoir could cause massive damage.
      Story is unfolding this moment.

  2. texas tea says:

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/09/green-energy-is-causing-power-shortages-in-europe-during-an-awful-winter/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
    “The average European spent 26.9 cents per kilowatt-hour on electricity during the last full year of data, while the average American only spent 10.4 cents, according to an analysis of government data previously published by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

    Even EU nations where power is relatively cheap pay a lot more for power than any U.S. state. Great Britain, for example, pays an average of 54 percent more for electricity than Americans paid last year. Much of the expense comes from subsidies for green energy, which account for roughly 7 percent of British energy bills, according to government study released last July.”

    what one would expect when socialist government goobers are in charge 🇺🇸

    • Nathanael says:

      Right-wingers, of the aristocratic variety, are in charge of pretty much every country in Europe right now.
      They do like their regressive electricity taxes.

      Of course this is an economic wedge. At European rates, it’s cheaper to buy your own solar panels and batteries. So people are doing so whether or not it’s legal. (Look up “guerrilla solar panels”).

    • Fred Magyar says:

      “The average European spent 26.9 cents per kilowatt-hour on electricity during the last full year of data, while the average American only spent 10.4 cents, according to an analysis of government data previously published by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

      So what? The price of regular gas in Germany is $5.57 a gallon. Yet the average German is better educated and has a higher standard of living, has universal health care, and is generally happier than the average Trump supporter… And most Germans seem to have grown up and gotten past their Deutschland Uber Alles flag waving stage. Well except for during world cup soccer matches…

      So how long have you lived in Europe?

      • Survivalist says:

        Europeans have been kicking batshit crazy ideas around for longer than the USA has existed. I think they’ve built up some immunity. It’ll be interesting to see how the next round of European election cycles go.

        • Duncan Idaho says:

          Many will have to take note after their 6 week vacation across Asia.
          Of course, the child bearing will have 4 months of paid leave to ponder their next bat shit crazy idea.
          Of course, being some of the most productive workers on Earth, their employers won’t mind.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Fred as usual has gotten right down to the nitty gritty of the question, and pointed out that the Germans live well, better than most people by a mile. AND they do it in a country that is remarkably short of natural resources that we take for granted in a country such as the USA. Their tax structure is set up in such a way that consumers pay a lot for electricity, true, but they also enjoy well paid work in German export industries that are more competitive as the result of having cheaper electricity. What they lose in one pocket, they find in the other pocket.

        The more renewable infrastructure the Germans deploy, the safer and the more secure their country will be. I’m the only person who mentions it in this forum, but everybody can rest assured that neither the Russians nor the Germans have forgotten WWII in general, or the siege of Stalingrad in particular. There is little doubt that more than a few Russians often toast the day that they will eventually be able to cut Germany off at the knees by cutting of gas and oil exports, and there is little doubt among thinking Germans that that day might come.

        I don’t know how what percentage of UK electricity is produced by their currently deployed wind and solar infrastructure, but we are apparently at about seven percent already here in the USA, and will probably be at ten percent within the next thirty six months.

        That means we Yankees are buying one hell of a lot less coal and natural gas to be used as generating fuel, and both coal and gas are CHEAP here in Yankee land, compared to the UK, which has to import both.

        In the long run, the more renewables the UK deploys, the smaller will be their bill for imported ff.

        Now finding professionally produced figures on the effect of the adoption of wind and solar power on the market prices of coal and natural gas is a tough job, for a computer klutz like me, and it’s apparently a tough job even for computer whiz kids, or else I would have found them posted in forums such as this one before now.

        But it’s obvious from even the most elementary economic theory that wind and solar power together are depressing not only the AMOUNT of coal and gas used to generate electricity, but the PRICE of both coal and gas as well.

        It is my belief that taken as a whole, or collectively, we Yankees are already saving actual cash money by subsidizing the wind and solar power industries. I could be wrong about this, but every year that passes, as we add more renewable capacity, we will be buying less coal and gas as generating fuel, and capacity installed this year WILL last way the hell longer than the twenty to twenty five years the skeptics or paid FF mouthpieces say.

        It might be necessary to replace or overhaul most turbine / generator units at about twenty years, but the major part of the infrastructure in terms of transmission lines, roads, land acquisition, surveys, permitting, engineering specs, grading, pouring tower foundations, heavy duty wiring on site, etc, will last more or less indefinitely with routine maintenance.

        And as far as the towers themselves are concerned, I haven’t yet seen much evidence, if any , that they won’t last a hell of a long time too, especially if at twenty or thirty years, when they may be suffering from fatigue , a somewhat smaller and lighter turbine / generator unit is installed.

        Ditto for solar farms and small scale solar. The initial from scratch costs are ONE TIME only costs, whether a solar farm is scrapped at thirty years, or kept in production for a hundred years. Just about everything except the panels themselves and electronics will last INDEFINITELY with routine maintenance, and when it comes time to replace panels, well, the old ones will sell like hot cakes to people who have little money but plenty of time and space to install them , and the NEW ones that are installed will be substantially more efficient than the ones removed.

        Painting fast with a broad brush, in three years we Yankees will be getting ten percent direct savings on the cost of coal and gas as generating fuel. It ten years, that will be enough saved just on the DIRECT purchase of coal and gas to WIPE OUT THE ENTIRE PURCHASE COST OF coal and gas for the entire electrical utility industry for a WHOLE year.

        And while I can’t quantify it except by raw guesswork, it’s likely that the loss of market for so much coal and gas will depress the average market price of coal and gas by at least one or two percent as well.

        Costs are passed along, and cheaper natural gas means cheaper fertilizer, and farmers buy nitrates by the millions of tons. Wind and solar power are contributing to keeping the price of groceries down.

        I’m big believer in doing every thing we possibly can to go renewable as fast as possible, because I believe doing so is the best possible and only viable solution to ff depletion and the ff associated environmental problems.

        But I am unable or unwilling to predict or believe that the transition will occur at any given rate, or even that it WILL succeed. There are simply too many variables involved. All I can say for sure is that I believe it is technically possible to go all renewable ,EVENTUALLY, but not within less than at least a couple of generations or so, and that some countries have at least a fair shot at turning the overshoot corner without crashing, assuming good luck and good leadership.

        They say God looks after little kids, drunks, and the USA, but He is sure as hell napping in terms of keeping an eye on our leadership at the moment.

        Having said this much, it’s also true that people like texas tea sound entirely credible when they’re talking to the general public, which is woefully ill informed about the true facts involved .

        So we need to be very careful about how we talk about renewable electricity being cheaper than coal or gas fired electricity.

        It’s easy for people like texas tea twist our words into pretzels if we don’t acknowledge that we must continue to pay for ff electricity as backup for the next decade or two.

        • Duncan Idaho says:

          With almost everything they kick our asses big time when it comes to quality.
          And workers get $25 a hour, and 6 week vacations, and universal health care and free education.

          Socialist hell!

          • Survivalist says:

            I think it’s because Germany spend less money just buying oil than the USA feels it needs to spend fighting for it. More cash for other things I guess.

        • Nathanael says:

          “and when it comes time to replace panels, well, the old ones will sell like hot cakes to people who have little money but plenty of time and space to install them ”

          I see this a LOT in the rural area surrounding the college town I live in. Hand-me-down solar panels move from the well-to-do professors to the rural guys…

        • Nathanael says:

          “It’s easy for people like texas tea twist our words into pretzels if we don’t acknowledge that we must continue to pay for ff electricity as backup for the next decade or two.”

          Yeah, 10 – 20 years is about right.

        • Ed says:

          Love reading your comments, Oldfarmermac. You might find these figures interesting. US figures to follow in another post.

          2014 UK renewable generation = 2.7 kWh/day per person
          2015 UK renewable generation = 3.5 kWh/day per person
          Source: Office of national statistics UK

          Estimated energy consumption in UK is 200 kWh/day per person. Source: David MacKay, Energy without hot Air

          Anyone interested in how the figures were calculated, just ask.

    • Ulenspiegel says:

      “The average European spent 26.9 cents per kilowatt-hour on electricity during the last full year of data”

      Hey genius. How do you explain that the monthly electricity bill of a German is not higher than of an American. 🙂

      Or from another POV: The high prices for consumer energy is a feature, not a bug as many Americans believe. 🙂

    • coffeeguyzz says:

      There are plenty of places in the US with retail, residential electric prices under 10 cents per kw.
      Easy to look up and compare.
      With the couple of dozen massive, Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power plants coming online the next few years in Ohio and Pennsylvania (some already in service), this area is on track to have the lowest utility prices on the planet.
      Cabot, in a creative effort to bypass pipeline bottlenecks, has contracted to supply some plants directly from their sites, tie pricing into HH to avoid regulatory issues, and ultimately provide electricity at bargain basement pricing.
      This is one reason global industries are starting to look to this area to establish plants.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Coffeguyz,

        The gas price won’t remain low if we start exporting the gas using LNG terminals. Any notion that natural gas prices will remain low forever is false once natural gas is traded on World markets like oil. Natural Gas will peak in 2030 and prices will rise sharply at the point the peak is reached.

        Perhaps electricity will be cheap for the next 15 years, but it is more likely about 5 years,hardly worth the investment in more natural gas power plants, cheaper to import electricity from the Midwest (Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas) where wind power PPAs are about 2 cents per kWhr in the fall of 2016 and likely to continue falling.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Hi Dennis,
          I’m with you all the way when it comes to believing the price of gas will go up substantially within a few years. My own opinion is that oil too will go up before very long, and most likely stay up, for a long time as well, maybe permanently, due to depletion, even if electric cars really do start selling well.

          It’s one thing for people to quickly adopt a new technology such as cell phones, which are dirt cheap, compared to cars, and deliver a lot of utility per dollar spent on them.

          But cars are about the biggest of big ticket items, excepting houses, and most people that can afford a new one aren’t all that interested in whether it will last a really long time, or how much it will cost to maintain it, because they expect to get another new one within four or five years or so.

          And it will likely be at least four or five years, probably longer in my opinion, before an electric will cost no more than a conventional car, everything else held equal. So my guess is that electrics won’t be cutting into oil consumption very much for at least ten years. Depletion may cut production faster than electrics reduce it for a long time.

          I don’t know how long a modern state of the art gas plant is supposed to last, but considering that most coal plants and some gas plants are pretty old, any new gas plants that get built will probably be needed for at least twenty or thirty years, not all the time of course , but still needed to the extent they will necessarily be maintained and manned and ready to run to back up wind and solar.

          It’s hard to predict how our government will deal with the problem of paying to maintain conventional generating capacity as the continuous need for it gradually declines, but the intermittent need remains. In Germany, the old line generating industry was more or less sacrificed, and the owners lost their shirts, in terms of the price of their shares of stock.

          What do you think will happen here in the USA?

          My guess is that Virginia will set rate schedules such that the owners of conventional coal and gas plants will remain solvent and at least moderately profitable. This will necessarily involve the owners getting paid higher rates per kilowatt hour, because they will be selling fewer hours as the renewable contribution increases.

          If it is necessary to shut down some conventional plants in good working order with a decade or more of life left in them, I won’t be surprised if I see my electricity bill go up a few cents for each such plant that is prematurely shut down, with the rate increase being spent to reimburse the owners for their loss.

          If my electricity bill goes up a couple of bucks a month for a few years because wind and solar power is being added to the grid, I’m confident I will save more than two dollars elsewhere, and come out ahead.

          Gas for heating and cooking will be cheaper, fertilizers will be cheaper, etc, and if wind and solar farms are built within the state, they will contribute to holding down my state taxes, etc.

          But it’s damned hard to come across any statistics to prove my argument.

          • Nathanael says:

            “And it will likely be at least four or five years, probably longer in my opinion, before an electric will cost no more than a conventional car, everything else held equal. ”

            *Sigh* The problem with this thinking is that a “car” is not a generic product where they all cost the same amount. They’re differentiated into different price classes.

            NEXT YEAR, electric cars will cost less than comparable conventional cars in the $35K-$55K price bracket. Actually this year, but you’ll have trouble finding them this year, they’re selling so fast. At least three different models.

            For the price brackets above that, electric cars already cost less than comparable conventional cars.

            For the price brackets below that, well, yeah, it’ll take a bit longer. But $32K is the average price of a new car in the US, so….

            “So my guess is that electrics won’t be cutting into oil consumption very much for at least ten years. Depletion may cut production faster than electrics reduce it for a long time. ”
            Rather than guessing I’ve attempted to calculate this several times.

            Unfortunately there are a lot of assumptions which have to be made (what is the actual statistical distribution of car sales by price? do more expensive cars typically get driven more or less than average? how fast can electric car factories be built? how often do cars get replaced, and do more expensive cars get replaced more often than less expensive cars? will depletion run at a steady long-term rate or will we get a huge depletion spike as the fracked fields run out? Is depletion being pulled forward by “stimulating” fields?).

            The crossover point where demand destruction for oil from EVs exceeds depletion is *probably* circa 2023. But that assumes steady depletion rates and steady exponential growth in EV production and a lot of “average” behavior for the cars being displaced by EVs, and it still had a two year margin of error (just from the range of “steady” depletion rates!)

            I think it’s likely that more expensive cars get replaced more often (which means demand destruction happens faster), that they get driven more (which means demand destruction happens faster), that the full curve of auto sales is biased towards the low end (which means demand destruction happens slower), that electric car factory construction will accelerate circa 2020 (which means demand destruction happens faster), that there’s a bulge in depletion circa 2020 due to the fracked fields running out (which means depletion happens faster),…. but I didn’t include any of that in my calculation which resulted in 2023.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi OFM

            Many states only regulate distribution and transmission of electricity and the suppliers of electricity are independent power producers. Only the suppliers that can backup wind and solar most cheaply will survive. Just the way capitalism works. States that regulate the power producers will change their laws or have very expensive electricity.

    • alimbiquated says:

      Well Eastern Europe use to have practically free energy in the good old days when commies were running the place. You would have loved living there I guess.

      The idea that cheap energy to consumers does anyone any good is moronic. All it does is encourage waste.

      And if you’re worried about the poor, support targeted poverty reduction programs. If there’s one thing communism should have taught you, it’s that dumping subsidies on primary good like steel and electricity doesn’t work.

      Time to join the 21st century.

  3. Longtimer says:

    “Yet covering up the truth about Fukushima denies the fact that Plutonium-239 is a billion times more dangerous than CO2, even at far lower concentrations in the atmosphere. Somehow, you are being told to be alarmed, horrified and freaked out by a non-emergency (climate change) while remaining completely apathetic about an actual, real emergency (Fukushima).”

    Point is about MSM total disregard for welfare for Life forms. What about dispersion of radionuclides ” as emitters” into ecosystem (s) do politicians not understand? Gotta Wonder, what Abe and The Donald are talking about?

    http://coyoteprime-runningcauseicantfly.blogspot.com/2017/02/fukushima-update-5000-sieverts.html

    • GoneFishing says:

      Apparently there is no evidence of the radiation leaking outside the reactor, but then we have been lied to before. So who knows? The part about going supercritical is amusing. Would solve the clean-up problem and make the world think twice about nuclear power.

      Some comparisons:
      https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-fukushima-released-76-trillion-becquerels-of-plutonium.t3008/

      The sad part is we keep playing with the radioactive stuff when we have been given alternatives.
      That’s right folks, we could be having clean, non-polluting, non-radioactive energy as our prime source. Did people or governments flock to these amazing solutions, did they get down on their knees and thank the powers for helping us? Nope. Instead we get a mediocre rollout at best and the market forces treatment.
      Let’s face it, we will get what we deserve.

      Finally got some snow and cold here. Global warming must be over. For a couple days at least.
      Lake was so warm that when the snow fell on the portions with ice cover, the snow instantly melted, all 9 inches of it turned to slush. At least we will do our part reflecting some solar energy for a few days this winter. Going to be back in the 40’s tomorrow though.
      I remember when the snow didn’t melt until spring. Maybe soon I will be trying to remember snow.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      While what happened/is happening at Fukshima is very concerning, climate change is a much bigger real emergency. In my way of looking at it, on a scale of 1 to 10, Fukshima rates about a 1 and climate change an 11! Because if tipping points are reached and sea level rise and other natural disasters like major floods and hurricanes start hitting heavily populated coastal areas where many nulear reactors around the world are located, we could be looking at many more Fukshima level nuclear disasters! Now that might start to be worrisome…

      Cheers!

      • GoneFishing says:

        The problem with climate change is that it often gives the appearance of weather. I know the huge changes in the Arctic should be enough to get the collective attention, but to most it seems so far away and the scientists are generally poor at communicating the consequences. They either understate the potential risks or seem to jump right to the upper boundary of risks. They also seem to assume that people will understand their techno-speak and know what they mean.

        The reaction to sea level rise is another one. It seems so far in the future to most people that it is not a consideration for most people, even if they live by the ocean.
        Those government agencies that are recognizing sea level rise, treat it as a controllable problem. Building dikes and dams to protect the valuable areas and slowly retreating from other areas will be the general way it is acknowledged.
        One fast event will cause huge problems, maybe people will listen then or maybe they will forget since the event did not repeat right away. Responses will vary.
        Probably get a similar response to the North American bread basket drying out. As the droughts extend into multi-year and finally multi-decade mega-droughts, the very next set of rains will chill the response. Eventually it will be obvious that drought is the more permanent condition, but by then much more will be obvious.

        Our aces in the hole is that fossil fuels may turn out to be as limited as some think. Limits on CO2 would make a difference, though it might only be rate not endpoint.
        The younger generation is more attuned to climate change so may react strongly as things get more obvious. We also have amazing technology that allows us to make great strides toward mitigating and maybe even reversing climate change.
        Will we use our abilities in the right way?

        Enjoy the ride, it’s been weird so far and bound to get stranger.

      • Charles Van Vleet says:

        I feel that improving health care, education, national defense, protection of the unborn/sanctity of life, and Social Security all rank higher in importance than any of these environmental issues. In my view, if we don’t spend the money we’ve got right now on all of these, then the future won’t be one worth living in anyway. Not that environmentalism isn’t important in some ways, just that the importance is much lower than any single issue I mentioned above when it comes to maintaining our unique American values against destructive outside forces.

        • Survivalist says:

          The money we’ve got right now? Last time I checked we’re pretty deep into the red. Maybe the treasury could print up some bonds and sell them to our central bank.

          • Charles Van Vleet says:

            No, that is wrong to imply that we haven’t got the money. My taxes are at all time highs, and go up even more all the time. The problem is, the revenue far too often is simply squandered and wasted on a needlessly large federal bureaucracy in DC.

            • GoneFishing says:

              We do not have a currency system, we have a debt system.

            • Nathanael says:

              If you look at federal spending — actually do your research — that “needlessly large federal bureaucracy” is *100%* the “Department of Defense”.

              Most of it is not in DC, it’s pork-barrel distributed in all 435 Congressional districts, which is why it’s been very hard to get rid of it. Although the HQ is in Arlington VA.

            • Survivalist says:

              “My taxes are at all time highs”

              And yet the country is in the red.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          I feel that improving health care, education, national defense, protection of the unborn/sanctity of life, and Social Security all rank higher in importance than any of these environmental issues.

          If we screw up the environment none of the things you consider more important can exist. The nation, the economy and every system you can think of, simply ceases to exist if you don’t take care of the basics first.

          The economy is a subsidiary of ecosystems inc.

    • sunnnv says:

      Sigh – hysterical technical incompetents.

      The 530 Sieverts was found in a location INSIDE the unit #2 Primary Containment Vessel,
      by a robot,
      that was the first thing in there since the accident.
      And that was measured only indirectly, by looking at the noise in the camera images. +/- 30%.

      http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/2017/images/handouts_170209_01-e.pdf
      (see especially slide 10).

      See more pictures of the deposit removal, and a video at:
      http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2017/201702-e/170209-01e.html

      Do these people spread apocalyptic non-sense for fun, for profit, or do they truly believe it?
      Are they so freaked out by real issues (peak oil, climate change) that they flee to insanity to distract themselves and avoid responsibility for themselves doing anything?
      I have got to order Greer’s Apocalypse Not real soon now…
      https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Not-Everything-Nostradamus-Rapture/dp/1936740001

  4. GoneFishing says:

    The lake near me is losing ice quickly today despite below freezing temps today and a cold dip to 10F last night. Even the snowfall is not reflecting enough energy to keep things cool, 45F tomorrow.

    I wonder if that is how the Arctic sea ice will go. Despite cold air temps, the warm waters will just thin an melt the ice until there is no more.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Snow leaving fast, lots of dark bare patches on the ground. The lake is half open and the ice cover is gray and patterned. A sure sign the ice is thin, melting and soon to be gone. Have to go a couple hundred miles north to get full snow cover. Spring 6 weeks early.
      Without all that snow and ice we would have 5% more heating globally and a lot more locally.

      Winter of 2015-16
      The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during winter (December 2015-February 2016) was 120,000 square km (46,000 square miles) below the 1981-2010 average— the 20th smallest winter SCE for the Northern Hemisphere since records began in 1967 and smallest since 2006-07.
      Similar to North America, the Eurasian SCE was below average during December and February and above-average during January. Rapid snow melt in late January and February caused the continental SCE to drop to fourth lowest on record for February at 1.65 million square km (640,000 square miles) below average.

    • Javier says:

      I wonder if that is how the Arctic sea ice will go. Despite cold air temps, the warm waters will just thin an melt the ice until there is no more.

      What warm Arctic waters? You are making that up.

      Argo shows no warming of Circum-Arctic ocean waters at any relevant depth during the 21st century, and NODC shows the same for Arctic Gateway seas 70-80N. Meanwhile the North Atlantic is cooling. Perhaps that is why Arctic sea ice is showing renewed resilience since 2007.

      http://www.climate4you.com/images/ArgoCircumArcticSince200401%2055N-65N.gif

  5. Survivalist says:

    Unregulated African migrants headed for KSA via Yemen.
    http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/amid-yemens-chaos-migrants-stream-face-torment-45108329
    Sounds like hell.

    • Nathanael says:

      Saudi Arabia has been a cancer on the region. Invading Yemen was the idiotic cherry on their cake of incompetence.

      • Survivalist says:

        KSA foreign policy seems to me to be a bit of a vanity project. Poorly thought out too. There’s not much talent at the top in KSA. I don’t see them keeping it together for too much longer.

  6. islandboy says:

    Morgan Stanley: US energy storage market could grow to 145 GWh with FERC support

    A new report from Morgan Stanley argues that energy storage is underappreciated and will grow more quickly than “consensus expectation.”

    Morgan Stanley sees a base case for the “addressable” U.S. storage market of about 85 GWh, but says that with favorable regulatory support from FERC, that number could nearly double to over 140 GWh.

    The report estimates that utilities, not individuals and businesses, will deploy most of the storage installed in the coming years because they are better positioned to reap the “collective benefits” from the multiple uses batteries can serve.

    A time frame (by when) would have been nice. They could be right, since things are moving really fast in the battery storage market. See:

    AES claims world’s largest battery storage system

    Move over Tesla. On Monday, AES Energy storage announced the completion of a 30 MW battery storage system in Escondido, Southern California. As verified by GTM Research, this is the largest lithium ion battery storage system in the world by megawatt-hour rating.

    And while this system is 50% larger in capacity than Tesla’s much-hyped battery system at Southern California’s Mira Loma substation, it has not received the press coverage that Tesla’s has. But this is not the only battery system that AES has commissioned, as the company also put online a 7.5 MW array in El Cajon. Both systems are based on AES’ Advancion System, which can work with multiple battery technologies.

    When a fourth 20 MW project put online by Greensmith last week is added in, this last week has seen the inauguration of 77.5 MW of battery storage in Southern California. This is equivalent to nearly 30% of the entire capacity of energy storage which GTM Research estimates was deployed in the United States in 2016.

    Then there’s this:

    Tucson Electric aims for greater reliability with 3 new battery storage projects

    Tucson Electric Power (TEP) has moved ahead with three storage projects designed to improve the resiliency of its grid.

    A unit of NextEra Energy Resources has built a 10 MW, 5 MWh lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt energy storage system at a TEP substation, and E.ON Climate & Renewables is building a 10 MW, 5 MWh lithium titanate oxide storage facility and a 2 MW solar array southeast of Tucson.

    TEP is also participating in a two-year research and development project with IHI, Inc. Energy Storage (IHI), which has built a 1 MW lithium ion storage system at TEP’s 5 MW Prairie Fire Solar Array.

    Dive Insight:

    Last spring the Arizona Corporation Commission approved TEP’s request for two energy storage projects. The utility had originally sought approval for one 10 MW storage facility, but after issuing a request for proposals last June, it found it could deploy two projects for what it had expected to pay for the single project.

    Bold mine.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Islandboy give it up already. Don’t you know it will NEVER work?!

      How Intermittent Renewables Are Harming The Electricity Grid.

      http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/How-Intermittent-Renewables-Are-Harming-The-Electricity-Grid.html

      By Gail Tverberg – Sep 02, 2016, 4:45 PM CDT
      Solar panel installation
      Many people are hoping for wind and solar PV to transform grid electricity in a favorable way. Is this really possible? Is it really feasible for intermittent renewables to generate a large share of grid electricity? The answer increasingly looks as if it is, “No, the costs are too great, and the return on investment would be way too low.” We are already encountering major grid problems, even with low penetrations of intermittent renewable electricity: US, 5.4 percent of 2015 electricity consumption; China, 3.9 percent; Germany, 19.5 percent; Australia, 6.6 percent.

      In fact, I have come to the rather astounding conclusion that even if wind turbines and solar PV could be built at zero cost, it would not make sense to continue to add them to the electric grid in the absence of very much better and cheaper electricity storage than we have today. (Bold Mine)

      BTW I have also come to an ASTOUNDING CONCLUSION, which is, that anyone still saying that renewables can’t compete with fossil fuels are just plain wrong! Anyone still betting on fossil fuels had better have a really good plan B…

      • GoneFishing says:

        Is this paid for by the fossil fuel interests or is this just a doomster blog?

        • GoneFishing says:

          Gail is still ranting on about renewables in her latest essay.

          https://ourfiniteworld.com/2017/01/30/the-wind-and-solar-will-save-us-delusion/

        • Fred Magyar says:

          I haven’t really looked into it all that much but my hunch is that a blog called oilprice dot com could conceivably be tied to those whose bread is being buttered by fossil fuel interests. I also think that Gail is somehow compensated for bashing solar and wind and therefore being pro fossil fuels by default.

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            I saw her live once at a conference. She puts on a little dog and pony show, it’s as canned as any canned presentation can be.

            It’s hard to say what somebody like her might really think or believe, but it’s very easy to believe she has a BRAND, and a following, and that she will say what’s necessary to keep the money coming in.

            There’s no doubt at all that she would be helpless in a debate with any of the regulars here in this forum with the exception of Texas Tea.

            For what it’s worth, I have never run across a professional engineer who says that we can’t integrate just about any amount of renewable juice into the grid, assuming somebody is willing to pay for the necessary upgrades.

            I just read an article a while ago about solar power in North Carolina, which says that pretty soon NC, which is incidentally a red southern state, is now apparently number three in the country in solar. NC will soon have a problem integrating more solar farms because it will be necessary to upgrade some lines and substations in rural areas where land is cheap and nobody objects to having a solar farm in the neighborhood.

            Duke , the local utility, is big investing in out of state wind and solar, and doesn’t seem to be willing to pay for the local upgrades that will enable NC consumers and businesses to keep their money in the state instead of spending it on gas and coal shipped in from other states.

          • Synapsid says:

            FredM,

            OilPro.com is actually a good source of information; I check it daily, weekdays. I especially like the articles or editorials or whatever they are by Nick Cunningham, on the left side of the home page but you have to click to find out who the author is. They Updated!, you see.

            Another is DownstreamToday. And Mondays, check ASPO Peak Oil Review, by Mike Whipple. He has an update Thursdays that’s worth a look too.

        • alimbiquated says:

          It is the life’s work of a woman who is clearly insane.

      • islandboy says:

        Sorry I forgot. Thanks for reminding me. I needed that! How presumptuous of me to imagine that anything could ever change! 😉

        There was an article with the headline, “Power warning – Increased use of renewables could burn the pockets of some JPS customers” in the Sunday edition of one of my local rags but, since there thread is a new non petroleum post up . I’ve posted it there.

  7. Alfred says:

    It is complete folly to believe wind and solar will be enough to provide power for humans to enjoy modern existence. There will be a resurgance of coal and oil for energy production.

    That is the way the world goes round.

    • GoneFishing says:

      The world goes round on inertia. The ecosystem is driven by solar energy. Fossil fuels are a small blip of energy needed by humans so they could learn how to make solar PV and wind turbines.

      • Doug Leighton says:

        “What makes the world go around?” Some say money, some say love. I say momentum.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          What makes the world go round?

          I agree with GF and say Inertia. 😉

          The earth started spinning as it collapsed out of the cloud of hydrogen from which the solar system was formed and it was subject to the laws of motion and the conservation of angular momentum. BUT What keeps it going round today is inertia and it is being slowed down by tidal friction courtesy of our moon’s orbital momentum.

          BTW the etymology of the word Momentum tells us that it describes both motion and movement and it also defines an instant of time.

          Latin momentum “movement, motion; moving power; alteration, change;” also “short time, instant”

          http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moment&allowed_in_frame=0

          • Doug Leighton says:

            As primordial debris collapses on itself it starts spinning faster and faster (because of conservation of angular momentum). Inertia then keeps it (Earth, planets, et cetera) spinning (on its axis). And angular momentum is the rotational analog of linear momentum.

            • GoneFishing says:

              Momentum is a measure of relative kinetic energy. Inertia is the property of matter that keeps it moving through space.
              Which brings up the matter of space. If the earth is moving through space, is it exchanging it’s internal space for new space as it moves or does it carry it’s own space and push aside the space that is there? Or does space not exist at all and it doesn’t matter? 🙂

              • Fred Magyar says:

                Yo! Stay outta my space or I’ll get in you face, with a canna mace! 🙂

              • Doug Leighton says:

                “Or does space not exist at all…..” No, it’s a hologram.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  Space is the solution. Matter is the precipitate. Living matter is the stuff growing on the precipitate.

                  No matter, we all need our space.

                  • Doug Leighton says:

                    Or, Virtual Reality: the ultimate realization of Gladiatorial Games.

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    Does dark energy equal dark mass times the speed of darkness squared…
                    And how fast does darkness actually spread in the age of Trump/Bannon?

                    DE = DM * D^2 ?

                    😉

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    I am in the dark on that subject. Mythical matter and energy are good for sci-fi movies and books.

              • clueless says:

                The human mind really cannot comprehend the concept of “nothing.” No space. No empty space – because “nothing” can have no dimensions. Some postulate a singularity. But, that has to be something, that existed somewhere. But, “nothing” has no somewhere. No dimension(s). No description other than “nothing.” If you try to describe “nothing” then you are turning it into something. You can only say that “nothing” is the complete absence of anything.

                It is futile to say that the universe started from nothing. Because if it did, it would have had to have a “place” to start. And nothing cannot have a place. Much less a “way” to start. “Nothing” cannot contain a “way” to do anything; “nothing” cannot become uinstable resulting in a big bang.

                Using mathematics does not accomplish anything. If you use mathematics to describe nothing, then you are ascribing some characteristic to nothing, which of course is something.

                • Fred Magyar says:

                  Using mathematics does not accomplish anything. If you use mathematics to describe nothing, then you are ascribing some characteristic to nothing, which of course is something.

                  Have you ever heard of quantum chromo dynamics?

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY
                  Empty Space is NOT Empty

                  “I don’t make any claims to answer any questions that science cannot answer, and I have tried very carefully within the text to define what I mean by “nothing” and “something.” If those definitions differ from those you would like to adopt, so be it. Write your own book. But don’t discount the remarkable human adventure that is modern science because it doesn’t console you.”
                  ― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing

                  • Fred, empty space is something, not nothing. Everywhere in space there is magnetic waves, photons, and neutrinos passing through. Every cubic inch of space contains these. This is something, not nothing. And even if there were no light or waves passing through it, it would still be three dimensional space, existing in time. It would still be something, not nothing.

                    You know I am an atheist. But I am an atheist only as far as it concerns any and all gods ever created by man. And all the gods you have ever read about were all created by man. But I have always been a closet mystic. I have my reasons and it has little to do with “something from nothing”. However….

                    Before the big bang, if there was a big bang, there was not empty space… there was nothing. There was no time and no space. There was nothing. Then suddenly there was something. Or “then a miracle happened”.

                    Science is saying give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest. The big band is that miracle. But we atheist don’t believe in miracles. Or do we?

                  • notanoilman says:

                    @Ron

                    What is between 2 neutrinos, space or nothing or …?

                    NAOM

                • Clueless, so you don’t believe in the big bang. Okay, if that didn’t happen, tell me what did happen? How did the universe come into being? Or is the question has been asked before, why is there something instead of nothing?

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    Before the big bang, if there was a big bang, there was not empty space… there was nothing. There was no time and no space. There was nothing. Then suddenly there was something. Or “then a miracle happened”.

                    Using Krauss’ definition I neither see the big bang as a miracle nor do I see a problem with his definition.

                    Krauss specifically defines ‘Nothing,’ as empty space. Which was, at least according to him, the state of the universe just before the Big Bang. Furthermore he clearly states that ‘Empty’ space is exactly what is described in the short video I linked to above and that ‘Empty’ space is not empty.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY
                    Empty Space is NOT Empty

                    Now that may seem at first blush to be a contradiction of terms but as he says whether we like it or not that is the way the universe is.

                    If I am not mistaken that very animation and the extremely precise mathematical calculations necessary to create it, were part of the fundamental science behind the discovery of the phenomenon of ”asymptotic freedom in QCD for which David Gross, David Politzer and Frank Wilczek shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics.

                    Now to be clear that level of mathematics and physics is waay beyond my pay grade but I’m comfortable enough with my knowledge of how science actually works to accept their expertise and their claims to be true.

                    As Krauss says, if you don’t like my definition of ‘Nothing’ go ahead and write your own book.

                    No miracles needed, thank you very much.

                  • Googled “Is empty space nothing?” The reply: And as in the rest of physics, its nature has turned out to be mind-bendingly weird: Empty space is not really empty because nothing contains something, seething with energy and particles that flit into and out of existence. Physicists have known that much for decades, ever since the birth of quantum mechanics. Jul 18, 2008

                    But then: Krauss specifically defines ‘Nothing,’ as empty space.

                    And just who appointed Laurence Krauss as the official arbiter as to what “nothing” consist of? And I think the majority of physicists would agree, that before the big bang there existed nothing, not empty space and not time. Space, if it has three dimensions, has to be something, not nothing. Because if it is “nothing” then it has no dimensions.

                    Of course they all say that time began at the instant of the big bang, and so did empty space shortly thereafter. But before the big bang there was nothing, no empty space. Empty space is something, according to every physicist in the world, except perhaps Laurence Krauss.

                    The sudden appearance of all matter and energy, contained in this vast universe, at the instance of the big bang… well, you may not call it a miracle, but realistically it can be called nothing else.

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    Ron,
                    And just who appointed Laurence Krauss as the official arbiter as to what “nothing” consist of? And I think the majority of physicists would agree, that before the big bang there existed nothing, not empty space and not time. Space, if it has three dimensions, has to be something, not nothing. Because if it is “nothing” then it has no dimensions.

                    I wanted to respond to that but as I thought about a little more, I realized two things:

                    One, that even though no one in particular,(as far as I know), appointed Krauss as the arbiter of anything, let alone ‘Nothing’ (pun intended), given that he is a theoretical physicist and a cosmologist and he states clearly what he means by ‘Nothing’and defines it as ‘Empty’ space. Who am I to argue with that?

                    Second, I have really no way of knowing for sure, if the majority of physicists would agree, “that before the big bang there existed nothing, not empty space and not time.” Actually I think that quite a few physicists might actually agree with Krauss’ definition, especially as explained within the context of his book.

                    So given that he wrote the book, it seems to me, as I have previously stated, that understanding the math and physics of quantum chromo dynamics is waaay beyond my pay grade it would be best if I let Krauss explain what he thinks and means by letting him speak for himself.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsGYRArH_w
                    Lawrence M. Krauss (2014) “Universe from NOTHING!” [FULL]

                  • as I have previously stated, that understanding the math and physics of quantum chromo dynamics is waaay beyond my pay grade.

                    Fred, quantum physics did not exist before the big bang. So really this debate has nothing to do with quantum physics. It ia solely about “something from nothing”. The existence of quantum physics would be part of that “something from nothing”.

                    All laws of physics, supposedly, sprang into existence with the big bang.

                    However I understand. Trying to conceive of a universe from nothing is way beyond your pay grade. So you have decided to let someone else do your thinking for you.

                    I used to feel the same way but lately I just thought “that just does not make any sense.” So I decided to start thinking for myself.

                    Thanks for the dialogue.

                    Ron

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    Ron, first of all, I am quite capable of thinking for myself!

                    Fred, quantum physics did not exist before the big bang. So really this debate has nothing to do with quantum physics.

                    The debate is that Krauss and others posit that before the big bang there there was Empty Space with quantum fluctuations that allowed particles to pop in and out of existence.

                    Since I am not a cosmologist or particle physicist I figured that it made sense to defer to someone like Krauss who is. Especially since it is his ideas and book we were discussing.

                    For the record my own view is that if ‘Nothing’ is defined as ‘Empty’ space then it would be perfectly plausible that something like the Big Bang could result from quantum fluctations.

                    Just because I can’t do the math myself that would show that doesn’t mean can’t grasp the concept by thinking about it for myself.

                    Listen to Krauss’ lecture or read his book if you like. Or don’t it’s up to you. However you might also check with 2004 winners of the Nobel in Physics as to what they think about ‘Empty’ space and the Big Bang. It just so happens that at least one of the winners Frank Wilczek is a long time personal friend of Lawrence Krauss and is now on the faculty of ASU where Krauss is the Director of the Origins Project.

                    To be clear you are entitled to your opinion but I disagree with you that quantum fluctuations did not exist in empty space before the Big Bang. And once again don’t take my word for it ask Frank Wilczek and Krauss.

                  • The debate is that Krauss and others posit that before the big bang there there was Empty Space with quantum fluctuations that allowed particles to pop in and out of existence.

                    Fred, Fred, Fred, dear God, (pardon my Freudian slip), you are talking about something, not nothing.

                    No, no, no, there is no consensus, even among physicist, that something existed before the big bang. In fact the exact opposite is the case. And I have followed this for years Fred. No one seems to agree of what happened before the big bang.

                    Regardless, it simply does not matter. If empty space existed before the big bang, with particles popping in and out of existence, then this still had to have a beginning. It had to start somewhere.

                    However, it does not matter. All the matter and energy in the universe still sprang into existence in a single instance… from nothing. This, by any stretch of the imagination, had to be a miracle.

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    Fred, Fred, Fred, dear God, (pardon my Freudian slip), you are talking about something, not nothing.

                    No, no, no, there is no consensus, even among physicist, that something existed before the big bang.

                    LOL! I didn’t say there was a consensus. What I said was that this is what Krauss and some others think. And yes it all revolves around ‘NOTHING’ not being nothing anymore. Hey It’s Krauss’ idea and definition, not mine. Once you accept the definition then You can accept that the universe arose out of empty space (nothing) at the instant of the Big Bang…

                    But as you say, it really doesn’t matter the universe just is the way it is!
                    Peace, Fred out! 😉

                • Synapsid says:

                  clueless et al.,

                  I like Hawking’s statement:

                  “To ask what existed before the Big Bang is like asking What is present one mile north of the North Pole?

                  It’s a meaningless question.”

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    Yet some people still ask the question and even disagree with Hawking’s views on the matter.

                    BTW are you talking magnetic north pole or true north pole… 😉

                  • Doug Leighton says:

                    Referring to quantum mechanics: …the “paradox” is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality “ought to be.” Richard Feynman

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    The chance is high that the truth lies in the fashionable direction. But, on the off-chance that it is in another direction — a direction obvious from an unfashionable view of field theory — who will find it? Only someone who has sacrificed himself by teaching himself quantum electrodynamics from a peculiar and unfashionable point of view; one that he may have to invent for himself.
                    “The Development of the Space-Time View of Quantum Electrodynamics,” Nobel Lecture (11 December 1965)
                    Richard Feynman

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    All I have to say is that it is a good thing that space is transparent. Which brings up the possibility of dark space.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Alfred, I didn’t think you’d be campaigning so soon!
      .

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      Hi Alfred,

      Go tell it to the people who live in the hills and hollows not that far from me who are out of work not because of a war on coal, but because the local mines are were all worked out years ago. It’s not like we have a choice, dude. It’s when, not if. We either switch to renewable energy , or your grandkids will won’t live comfortable modern lives.

      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        I sure wish HRC were president. She wanted half a billion new solar panels installed. Trump believes climate change is a hoax.

        But you know, we can’t forgive those Emails

        • Nathanael says:

          I sure wish Bernie was President. He had a plan to go 100% renewable.

          But you know, Hillary is more “electable”, whatever that means (apparently it has nothing to do with winning elections).

          • alimbiquated says:

            She beat Bernie though. How? By getting more votes. She got more votes than Trump as well.

            Which states do you think Bernie would have won that Hillary didn’t, and what evidence can you provide for it?

  8. GoneFishing says:

    There is no light at the end of the tunnel for coal.
    Coal’s revival is a flash in the pan, or more likely just a political dream.

    In a new analysis, leading independent energy experts at BNEF dismantle these claims. “Whatever President Trump may say, U.S. coal’s main problem has been cheap natural gas and renewable power, not a politically driven ‘war on coal,’” explain BNEF chair Michael Liebreich and chief editor Angus McCrone. Therefore “it will continue being pushed out of the generating mix.”

    https://thinkprogress.org/coal-wont-rebound-whatever-president-trump-does-energy-experts-say-e30a78745b77#.rfpsbvj1s

    • Fred Magyar says:

      One of these days people will realize that the electricity used to produce and refine oil could run all the EV’s we would ever need.

      Now add to that the fact that all of that electricity can be produced by wind and solar and that renewable energy is already providing more jobs than oil gas and coal extraction combined. And one of these days it will dawn on people what a massive con job they have been subjected to for the last few decades by the fossil fuel interests. Who have been telling everyone that clean energy can never provide a high standard of living like oil can. Oh, and did I mention that EVs are perfect battery backups for storing electricity for the grid

      Imagine that, no need for any dirty or dangerous fuels. Shall we also mention too cheap to meter nuclear?

      • GoneFishing says:

        Amen, brother, amen.
        It’s gotten so bad that the oil companies, the coal companies and even some gas companies are in financial trouble. Yet we still keep plunging money into fossil fuels because we are hoisted on our own petard. That is changing though.

      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        “telling everyone that clean energy can never provide a high standard of living”

        It’s seems to me that clean energy could actually provide for a HIGHER standard of living with less medical issues like cancer and a reduction in medical costs. Plus less noise pollution.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Every once in a while HB gets something right.

          We will live significantly longer and healthier lives , on average , as we transition away from fossil fuels.

          Air pollution is a killer, in more ways than one. It reduces crop yields to a noticeable extent in some areas already, which means it costs more to eat. I use galvanized steel roofing on my buildings, and it lasts noticeably longer in parts of the country where there is less acid rain. The benefits are small enough in any one respect that they aren’t usually obvious , except if you look at the statistics, but there are enough small positive differences to add up to a big positive difference overall.

      • Bob Nickson says:

        A buddy dropped by today with a Fiat 500e electric car and handed me the keys.

        That car was an absolute blast to drive. If you punch the accelerator pedal, it’s just go go go, and it’s go RIGHT NOW !

        I might just have to get me one a them things. 2013 models can be had for under $6k in California.

        It’s great fun just roasting everybody from stop lights, and then recapturing 80% back on regen as you brake. I can’t wait to drive a Tesla. As fast as that little Fiat is, I can’t imagine what the Tesla must be like; it’s 0-60 time is faster than the Fiat’s 0-30.

        Knowing that we were having all this fun on harvested photons was just mind blowing.

        In spite of hot rodding balls out everywhere – seriously aggressive driving – the trip report at the end said economy was 128 mpge.

        I’m so ready to be done with petrol.

        • HuntingtonBeach says:

          Hi Bob,

          A little more than a year ago I got about a 8 mile ride in a S85. It was impressive. There were two things that stood out the most to me. How quiet it was under max acceleration from 10 to 90 mph. You would hear nothing until the tires started making road noise at about 45 to 50 mph. You could feel the acceleration in your body, but it seemed like you were sitting in you recliner in your living room. Second, with the low center of gravity the car had basically no lean around the corners and felt like it was on rails.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          If my health holds up a few more years, I’m probably going to buy a slightly ratty Volt or Leaf myself. I don’t drive enough to justify buying new, and consider new cars a waste of good money that can either be invested or donated to a good cause.

          Of course SOMEBODY has to buy new so I can buy used, lol, but I don’t need the ego boost. People who know old farmer types know that you can best measure their status by what they own, and how they live overall, rather than by what they drive.

          When I used to throw big parties, back in my younger days, I never mentioned I was the host.. The unattached girls always figured it out within the course of a few hours, and it was remarkable to see how their attitude changed when they upgraded their evaluation of me from ” just another decent looking guy” ( back then, no longer, alas ) to “he’s the OWNER of this place and that gorgeous quarter horse I was petting a while ago”.

          After that the lack of a statusmobile hardly mattered at all. 😉

          Somebody is apt to take me to task for noting that women are super status conscious when it comes to picking their men, how many of us have ever known a quality woman who picked a man from LOWER down on the status ladder? It happens so seldom I can remember only a couple of cases in my entire life, although I have known a number of women who married guys who failed to rise as far in the world as they did , over the years. Most of those marriages lasted.

          It’s actually rather amusing that the more status conscious they are about the men they want, the more they deny it, and the more they talk about personality, personal values, etc.

          Now we guys go for shiny hair and and a full bra over brains and superior personal values ninety five percent of the time, which indicates without a doubt that men are a lower life form controlled by their hormones rather than their cerebral cortex.

          • Nathanael says:

            I know a few women who picked really terrible guys — not just low status, real lowlifes, though good-looking. They got the baby they wanted and then dumped the guy. That… well, I understand it but it always rubbed me the wrong way.

            I know a number of really quality women who did pick men who had low economic/social status but who had sterling personal qualities. Those marriages lasted. Sometimes I guess what you want is a really good house-husband or father! I think this may be a generational change, though; this seems *much* more common in my generation than yours. (See, sexism is declining!)

            All the quality men I know had good taste in women, too, looking for brains and superior personal values. This may also be a generational change, buit it is more likely to have to do with social class. (Having been raised in the academic class, gone to a top-tier college in a two college town, and returned to another two-college town, *everyone* around me, regardless of economic class, values brains; you can’t not, in this sort of environment.)

        • Nathanael says:

          I drive my Tesla in a very very relaxed, law-abiding style. It’s still nice to just tell the car what to do and have it do it. Instant response, whether accelerating or decelerating or turning. Drives like a slot car.

          • Bob Nickson says:

            I’m sure I’d calm down eventually, maybe.

            But is there any law that dictates how long you have to take to get to 40 in a 40 mph zone?

            Part of the fun with the Fiat is that no one expects that kind of performance from a clown car. Few would be (too) astonished that a Tesla is crazy fast.

            The main point is that electric cars are great fun to drive, which is a bit overlooked in the polar bear friendly messaging.

            On another note, the same friend that brought by the 500e had shown up a day earlier with a 750 watt electric bike with a 28 mph pedal assist top speed. On level 5 assist (max), that thing was a blast too. Wouldn’t really need a car most of the time if I had that bike.

  9. Oldfarmermac says:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/12/observer-profile-elizabeth-warren-democratic-party-donald-trump

    It’s really too early to say, but I think Warren has the best shot of anybody of winning the D nomination next time around, and if she does, she will be our next prez.

    Shes got everything necessary to win. She’s likable, she’s got a good record of supporting policies good for all or most of the country, and not just the elite, she has brains, she has a decent track record, she knows how to campaign, etc.

    She has no significant baggage train, and that means the Trumpsters won’t be able to run next time by hammering at her baggage .

    And while imo it’s not necessarily a good reason to vote for her simply because she is a woman, she’s qualified, and so there’s no reason NOT to vote for her, if you like her record and policies. A lot of women and some men will take the position that voting for her because she’s a woman is justified, and I won’t argue with them at all. It’s about time we had a woman at the top. The UK and Germany have already shown us the way.

    She’s a woman who will win the votes of D women and independent women by substantial margin, and she will get more than enough of the older, more traditionally oriented women’s vote to win the popular vote easily because nearly all liberal men and a rather large majority of middle of the road men will vote for her as well, plus she will get the votes of a LOT of conservative older men who will vote AGAINST Trump , if he manages to stay in office long enough to run again.

    Sanders has succeeded in forcing the D party to face up to today’s realities, but he’s also most likely too old and he will likely be too worn out to want to run again. But if his health holds up, he will be a damned effective campaigner for whoever gets the D nomination.

    They do say it’s the darkest just before the dawn.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      In the same bipartisan meeting where Donald Trump stunned participants by again complaining about nonexistent voter fraud, the president also resurrected an offensive dig at Democrat Elizabeth Warren, calling her “Pocahontas.”

      He referred several times to the Massachusetts senator as Pocahontas, sources told both CNN and Politico. “Pocahontas is now the face of your party,” Trump told GOP and Democratic senators, CNN reported.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-pocahontas-elizabeth-warren_us_589e8d0ae4b094a129eb6400?ekc69ubk2k6l59udi&

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Trump’s an unutterably uncouth redneck, of which there are several distinct varieties. The better sort occasionally think a little and confine the locker room talk to the locker room.

        It could be that Trump has NOT overestimated the stupidity of the general public, and that he thinks he can talk the way he does, do what he pleases, and stay in power, but I sincerely hope he is wrong about that, and that his stay in office is a short one.

        I don’t believe he has more than a very slim chance of being reelected. He won only by the proverbial hair, and he had the advantage of running against the least liked candidate the D’s have run in living memory and maybe in the history of the party, as an outsider at a time when an outsider was called for.

        If he makes it to 2020 without being impeached,and he can get the nomination again, which is doubtful in my opinion, he will be the insider at a time the country is hotter than hell about LOTS of things, setting the stage for another outsider. Sanders and Warren are well enough known, but not TOO WELL KNOWN, which was paradoxically a MAJOR problem for Clinton. The electorate saw her as just one more generation Republican Lite candidate, when a previous generation people’s candidate was needed. Both Sanders and Warren have credibility as people’s candidates. Clinton didn’t , and neither did Trump, but since Trump entered the race as an outsider, the electorate didn’t KNOW him as a politician, and the D’s, in the eyes of voters who didn’t particularly like the D social program and who didn’t like Clinton in particular, LACKED THE CREDIBILITY and sufficient time to really get the message across in terms of Trump’s own baggage train, which was even worse than Clinton’s, but not so widely recognized by voters in general, and hardly recognized at all by the people most prone to vote for him. It takes a while for the public to make up its mind about a new face in politics sometimes, and it Trump’s case, this was one of those times.

        But in spite of everything, Clinton had it in the bag, except that in her arrogance she gave the working people of this country the figurative middle straight finger for the sake of the banksters silver, and did it again by campaigning on identity politics, and against Trump, rather than FOR the people who are the heart and soul of the REAL Democratic Party. If she had spent even a quarter of the time in the Rust Belt that she spent on relatively trivial issues such as disputed genders using public restrooms, etc, she would have won and she would be Madam President today.

        He whom the Gods would destroy, they first raise high, that’s a key line that every student of literature knows well, and it applies to Clinton. She made it almost to the ultimate pinnacle of power, and failed by a hair, due to arrogance and lack of judgement.

        But she’s not going to jail, and she is still beloved by half the country, and in a few years the other half will have gotten over being mad at her, and thinking of her as not bad at all, compared to Trump.

        Trump is at high risk of actually going to jail, because he is pissing off everybody in the country, including a lot of people who will have the power to put him in convict’s orange. It’s insane to go around bad mouthing federal judges, who are very sophisticated people and who look after their branch of government above all things, and looking after each other is part of that.

        Think insulting a southern mountain hillbilly’s mother, or his sister, or wife, and you will get the idea. I have engaged in physical violence myself on that ground, and told the other guy previous to mixing it up that if he whipped my ass I would come for him with help as soon as I was able, and meant it.

        There are plenty of cops at all levels, including the FBI, etc, who would like to see Trump in jail, and plenty of federal judges who will be glad to put him there, while conducting a perfectly by the book trial, no chance of reversal in a higher court.

        And unless I miss my guess, there will be enough Republicans willing to help the D’s to put the dogs on him, by 2020 if not sooner.

        Even here in my backwoods neighborhood, the disillusionment of the people who voted for him is becoming evident already, and he hasn’t even been office two months yet. He’s setting all time records in terms of pissing off almost every body except his homies who expect to come out ahead with his help.

        Sanders is probably too old to want to run again, so for now my money is on Warren, as the early D favorite.

        • Nathanael says:

          “He’s setting all time records in terms of pissing off almost every body”

          Isn’t that impressive?

        • clueless says:

          OFM
          Really?? [Hillary] “she is still beloved by half the country”

          Really??? “Sanders is probably too old to want to run again” Well, at least he is not a socialist, but rather a full fledged communist.

          Really???? “my money is on Warren” Tell me how we can get in touch. We can set up an escrow account with a trustee and both put our cash money in. You can name the amount.

          And, what did Trump do to warrant him being in prison?

          And, I do not know your circle of friends, but my entire life, the people who I know, from time to time, have bitched about judges. In fact, just look at the abortion issue, or prayer in school, or crosses, or the ten commandments. So, I guess that you want a constitutional ammendment that you cannot criticize a court ruling. In that event, I guess that you advocate burning most of the law books, and imprisoning judges who “overturn” another judges ruling.

          In my opinion, I question whether or not you think things out before you put your thoughts on paper.

    • Hickory says:

      Yes, I like her. She seems like a straight shooter who takes no crap.

  10. GoneFishing says:

    The paper presented here appears to have been written over a decade ago, but brings up some very important points about the net energy of PV systems. Net energy is enough to produce up to 31 times the embedded energy of a PV installation over a 30 year lifetime. Also it is energetically and environmentally superior to place PV on and as part of buildings rather than as solar PV plants.

    http://alpha.chem.umb.edu/chemistry/ch471/evans%20files/Net_Energy%20solar%20cells.pdf

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      I agree about the net energy, and in principle about putting pv right where the juice is going to be used.

      But as a practical matter, it looks like you get a bigger bang for the dollar by putting up a solar farm, large or small, and distributing the juice over a grid, local or the utility grid.

      I’m hoping somebody can say about how long it might be before we can put up home owner and small business sized pv systems efficiently enough to make them as economic as larger systems that have the advantage of scale.

      Besides the initial savings in construction costs, it’s a given that maintenance and eventual overhaul will be cheaper by a mile when everything is in one place to the extent possible. Consider the cost of replacing a small component such as a bad panel or inverter when you can do it from the ground, no ladders, no climbing, and everything is totally standardized. With a small solar farm, it will be ok to wait until there’s enough work needed to keep a couple of guys busy half a day, or all day, with them making just one trip to the job site, and with only ONE model inverter, switch, connector, etc, in the parts bins on the truck. With a home system, it might be years between failures of individual components but it will still be necessary for electricians to go to the home to fix just one problem, because it won’t be practical to wait for years to fix it.

      The last time I saw a cost comparison, the Germans were still whipping our ass good, doing turn key residential scale installations for about half what it costs to do them here in the good ole USA, but we may be catching up by now.

      The next question is how long it will be before we hopefully have a fully standardized design and construction code for pv, the way we have for grid juice. I can go to the little nearby town and buy every single part of the entire wiring system in my house and on my farm right off the shelf, with at least three different brand names to choose from for every single part.

      Competition and standardization work miracles in lowering costs, and in enabling the easy training of construction and maintenance workers.

      • GoneFishing says:

        The embodied energy of a PV farm is much higher as are the transmission losses than a system put on a building. Even though there is far more work and material involved in the PV farm it is cheaper per kwh due to middle-men, exorbitant contractor fees, permitting and volume discounts.
        Makes no sense. No security system, no fencing, no boring holes and pouring concrete footings, no large frameworks, no extra land or tax costs; yet residential installation is far more expensive. Rip-off is what I say. The homeowner pays through the nose for all services.
        So we will do it the stupid way, but at least we may still do it.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          So we will do it the stupid way, but at least we may still do it.

          There seems to be a lot of industrial grade stupid being put in the way by some rather devious low lifes trying to make sure it is NO WAY!!…

          Case in point:

          This exchange filed by multiple news agencies and posted on Yahoo News underscores the essence of the Republican war on science and how deeply delusional these people are! It also makes crystal clear that they are deeply in the pockets of a dying fossil fuel industry and lays bare where their interests truly lie.

          One hour into a loud, contentious town hall meeting in his home state of Utah, Congressman Jason Chaffetz was asked two simple questions by a young girl named Hannah Bradshaw. The first was about the environment: “What are you doing to help protect our water and air for our generations and my kids’ generations?” The second was just a bit more broad: “Do you believe in science?”…

          …Chaffetz started with an empty statement that only a career politician could think would play well in front of a high school auditorium packed to the brim with frothing citizens: “What is thrown into our air, what is thrown into our water, obviously has an effect on our environment.” He was then met with a holy chorus of boos when he said he supported an “all of the above energy strategy” that includes coal as “an important part of that future.”

          That’s where the clip above ends, but Chaffetz didn’t stop there. The Salt Lake Tribune live-streamed the entire event on Facebook, and if you pick up the exchange over there you’ll be treated to Chaffetz continuing to ignore Bradshaw’s questions while propping up muddy arguments like electric cars being dirty — “There’s a lot of people who want to move to electricity. Well how in the world do you think electricity is generated?” — and how solar farms are destroying wildlife

          Well, some of us actually have a pretty good idea how electricity is generated and that compared to other forms of electricity generation SUCH AS COAL, solar farms do a hell of a lot less damage to the environment and wildlife than using coal, gas nuclear and oil combined. And that includes all the mining, transport, manufacturing, construction, refining and supply chains that go into each of those means of producing electricity!

          If a little girl in Utah can understand all this then the only remaining explanation for someone like Congressman Jason Chaffetz not understanding it is that his salary depends on his not understanding it.

          Someone says Coal is an important part of our future?! Now that is industrial grade bullshit!

            • Fred Magyar says:

              Nice! I see your leaping dolphins and I raise you my spinning dolphins 🙂

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A4_WzNMA_0
              Spinner dolphins near Fernando de Noronha, Brazil

              • Doug Leighton says:

                Super-cool plus. Tks.

              • Duncan Idaho says:

                I did dolphin tours (with a trimaran) in Micronesia, mainly Japaneses tourists.
                Spinners were our favorite!
                They got to know the boat, and seemed to love to play between the hulls of the tri.

                Tursiops were not nearly as fun, and the Spinners would leave when they showed up.

                • Doug Leighton says:

                  Japanese also eat dolphin and whale (in sushi) which really used to piss me off when I lived in Japan. Of course it still really pisses me off.

                  • Duncan Idaho says:

                    Really pisses me off also.

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    The fact that the Japanese and people from all nations including the US still eat Tuna sushi pisses me off just as much if not more!

                    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/umrsmas/bullmar/2005/00000076/00000002/art00012

                    The Sustainability of Western Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: A Warm-blooded Fish in a Hot-blooded Fishery

                    Abstract:
                    The Atlantic bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus (Linnaeus, 1758), is one of the most valuable animals in the world. Weighing as much as 700 kg and able to swim at over 90 km h−1, it is regarded by many as the consummate game fish. It is also highly esteemed among connoisseurs of sashimi, particularly in Japan where one 200 kg specimen recently commanded almost US$174,000. Not surprisingly, the bluefin tuna population in the western Atlantic has declined to a fifth of its former biomass, yet the fisheries for it remain lucrative. Some see this as a recipe for disaster reminiscent of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horns —but others see only a resilient species temporarily stymied by poor environmental conditions. Still others say the bluefin caught in the western Atlantic are part of a much larger pan-Atlantic stock and that the real problem is unregulated fishing in the eastern Atlantic. This paper discusses these and other contentious issues that govern the “sustainability” of western Atlantic bluefin tuna in today’s unquenchable markets. It also examines how new technologies are being used to unveil the mysteries that for decades have enshrouded bluefin management policies in controversy.

                  • Duncan Idaho says:

                    No one should be eating Atlantic Bluefin.
                    I must admit, while in a school of yellowfin last year off SoCal, a deckhand gaffed a fish I had on (I assumed it was a yellowfin) that turned out to be a Bluefin.
                    The Eastern Pacific population is healthier, but we need to stop.
                    Right now.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Discerning Evolutionary Rules:

            Rule one: Do not feed, shelter or encourage the stupid or the ones that take non-sustainable options
            Rule two: Do not mate with one of the above
            Rule three: Avoid all interactions with those stupid and non-sustainable creatures.
            Rule four: If things are changing, change them faster. Those who cannot keep up with the change will become glaringly obvious. Apply rules one to three in a strong fashion.

            • Duncan Idaho says:

              You may find this interesting:
              Genetically Capitalist? The Malthu-
              sian Era, Institutions and the For-
              mation of Modern Preference
              http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf

            • Nathanael says:

              Sadly, evolutionary history proves that the “have a billion children, with as many mutations as possible, eat fast and reproduce fast, let the best adapted children survive and the rest die off” strategy — as used by bacteria — is often more effective than the “intelligence” strategy which humans use.

              Actually learning biology properly changed my worldview for good.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                Actually learning biology properly changed my worldview for good.

                As it did mine! but now we have CRISPR-cas9 and gene drives which are a real potential evolutionary game changing technology.

          • notanoilman says:

            He got booed out of the meeting. Sounds like there may be a glimmer of hope in people wising up.

            NAOM

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Hi GF,

          There certainly is an element of the rip off in just about every business involving small contractors, especially when the industry is expanding an the customer is ignorant or poorly informed of the costs.

          I have about a half a dozen acquaintances who were FORMERLY my friends in all respects except if I needed their services, for example hauling gravel, clearing land, or cutting down dangerous trees hanging over a house. THEN they were perfectly willing to bullshit me about how much it cost them to do a given job, and I KNOW they were bullshitting me.

          Since those days, I have gotten more equipment of my own, or larger equipment, and and acquired additional skills, and generally do nearly all my own work. Now that I have two or three nice big yellow machines of my own, I’m an insider, and they are perfectly straight forward about how long such machines last, and how much it costs to maintain them. They are perfectly willing to acknowledge that I can own and operate my backhoe for well under a hundred dollars a day of actual work, plus fuel, meaning that the net return to me would be about four hundred bucks, if I were to hire out, which I don’t. I bought it for my own use as my own personal toy, and all the work I do with it pays me in the form of a tax free capital gain in the value of my property.

          The welding contractor where I earned my stripes as a pro forty years ago charges eighty dollars an hour for a machine, associated hand tools, and operator who also drives the truck that hauls the machine. The actual running costs including setting aside money to replace the equipment seldom exceeds thirtyfive dollars and hour, and is usually under thirty, because wages are low in this area. ( But so is the cost of living,and I know a lot of people who have never made forty thousand in a year in their life who live in houses as nice as the ones that go for three hundred and up in places such as Northern Virginia.)

          So naturally I own my own welding equipment, even though I don’t hire out welding. Ten thousand dollars worth of equipment that will last indefinitely used only occasionally enables me to enjoy doing various projects that are worth a twenty percent return annually, plus at least a couple of times a year I fix something broke and save a few hundred more.

          But you have one hell of a time competing with guys who have the economies of scale on their side, no matter what. I have all the equipment and expertise needed to garden on any scale, and excellent land, but I have given it up, except for a few tomato plants, sweet peppers, cucumbers, etc. I can buy first quality at a local farmers market so cheap it’s out of the question for me to garden anymore, except as an enjoyable hobby , and I have other hobbies.

      • Nathanael says:

        “I’m hoping somebody can say about how long it might be before we can put up home owner and small business sized pv systems efficiently enough to make them as economic as larger systems that have the advantage of scale.”

        Complex question. Elon Musk is trying to do this with his BIPV “solar roof” tiles. SolarCity has been obsessively trying to cut install costs before that already. Install costs are far lower in Australia than in the US already.

        So people are working on this. I just couldn’t say how long it’ll be.

        • GoneFishing says:

          A solar PV system designed to meet the residence needs is better than two times as cheap as grid electric at $3/watt installed. Assuming grid electric power will stay the same over the life of the system. If grid electric power cost increases, then it will be a better bargain.

  11. clueless says:

    What did Presidents Hoover , Truman, and Eisenhower have in common?

    Back during the great depression, Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of ALL illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work.

    Harry Truman deported over two million illegal aliens after WWII to create jobs for returning veterans.
    In 1954 Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexicans. The program was called Operation Wetback.
    It was done so WWII and Korean War veterans would have a better chance at jobs. It took two years, but they deported them!

    Now, if they could deport the illegal aliens back then, they could surely do it today. If you have doubts about the veracity of this information, enter Operation Wetback into your favorite search engine and
    confirm it for yourself.

    Why, you might ask, can’t they do this today? Actually the answer is quite simple. Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower were men of honor, not untrustworthy politicians looking for votes! [Or, maybe they were fascists.]

    Reminder: Don’t forget to pay your taxes

    12 to 20 million illegal aliens – are depending on it.

    • Nathanael says:

      “Clueless” is a good nickname for you to use.

      The deportations had essentially no effect, as you can see if you look at the history. What’s the point, then?

      It would be more effective to force the companies which *hire* illegal immigrants to verify immigration status before hiring. This would eliminate most of the incentive to come to the US for work, if there was no work. Democrats have proposed this repeatedly.

      But the companies don’t want to do it, and the Republicans don’t want to force them to do it. I wonder why? Maybe these companies like their cheap agricultural labor who they can abuse and threaten with deportation? Maybe Republicans are being paid by these companies?

      Personally, I believe illegal immigration is a sign that a country is popular. If it is declining — *and it is* — the net migration has been from the US to Mexico in recent years — you should worry because it means there’s something wrong with your country. There is something wrong with the US right now.

      Canada is welcoming immigrant refugees. It’s worth remembering that those who make the effort to immigrate are usually much more hardworking and often smarter than those who stay behind, so it’s a totally self-interested action on Canada’s part.

  12. Preston says:

    A little good news on the climate,

    1. There isn’t as much methane hydrates as first thought, not all places it could form have a source.

    2. A lot of the hydrates are deep under the sea floor and are not likely to be released quickly (the layer of ice is thick and soooo deep it can’t melt that fast, even with a much warmer surface).

    3. Methane that is released dissolves in the water except in shallow areas.

    4. Methane that is released gets eaten by microbes.

    So the net effect is:

    “The breakdown of methane hydrates due to warming climate is unlikely to lead to massive amounts of methane being released to the atmosphere, according to a recent interpretive review of scientific literature performed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Rochester.”

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-02-gas-hydrate-breakdown-massive-greenhouse.html#jCp

    This means the massive 20GT rapid release McPherson talks about that would fry us all before 2030 may be postponed. However, methane is rising rapidly, but they are now blaming sea level rise in the mid latitudes as land gets flooded. Whatever the source, the rise looks non-linear and if it continues we still could fry relatively soon.

    • Javier says:

      When comprehensive science research points firmly away from alarm, don’t expect any attention here.

      Ron Patterson dedicated a post to rampant climate alarm on June 2015:
      http://peakoilbarrel.com/are-we-headed-for-global-warming-collapse/

      Methane release from permafrost and clathrates figured prominently in the post as a source of fear. I pointed out that science did not support those fears here:
      http://peakoilbarrel.com/are-we-headed-for-global-warming-collapse/#comment-523218

      When it turned out that I could prove that I was right I got silence. You don’t make any points at this blog for being right in demonstrating that climate scaremongering is baseless.

      Nice touch that you still think we are going to fry in short order.

      • Preston says:

        Javier,

        There is a big difference between the cherry picked and falsified info you present and real science. You’ve been given plenty of latitude to post whatever crap regardless.

        This review of the hydrate issue just puts us back on track with the consensus projections, but we still have a very serious issue.

        • Doug Leighton says:

          Indeed, concentrations of methane in the atmosphere have averaged about 500 ppb for the past 800,000 thousands but are now rapidly closing on 1880 ppb. Anyone with half a brain would be concerned.

          • Javier says:

            That alone demonstrates methane has a small impact in temperatures.

            People with half a brain usually have more reason to be concerned as they probably are missing a lot of superior functions. It is the cortex that allows us to rationalize our fears. That’s why children can be so frightened by things that shouldn’t frighten them.

          • Preston says:

            So now Javier thinks his gut is a better judge of the optical properties of methane than a real scientist taking actual measurements in a lab. Methane is the next largest source of greenhouse warming after CO2 and it is rising faster and seems to be accelerating.

            This isn’t exactly rocket science.
            Is the concentration of CO2 and the other greenhouse gas rising?

            Are the optical properties of CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses wrong?

            It’s not hard to go from those changes and the known properties to calculate the additional thermal forcing. Plus nasa has a satellite that can directly measure the energy imbalance. Record temps, melting poles, dying coral reefs, dying kelp beds. There’s just so much overwhelming evidence now anyone still in doubt is being willfully ignorant. Unfortunately, almost half of the voters in the US think the planet is only 6000 years old so ignoring science and being willfully ignorant is pretty common.

        • Javier says:

          Preston, the only difference is that you presented this research instead of me.

          I was aware of this research 3 days ago when it was brought to my attention at WUWT.
          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/10/good-news-gas-hydrate-breakdown-unlikely-to-cause-massive-greenhouse-gas-release/

          I had already downloaded the article and reviewed it here:
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016RG000534/full

          The difference is that I did not post here about it. If you do it is “real science”. If I do it is “cherry picked and falsified info.”

          Nearly all the info I post is from scientific journals and official research organizations. The huge bias is inside you.

          Alarmist climate information sooner or later is shown false. But climate doomsday believers by then have new fears to focus their attention, and their minds show a bias selection so good real news do not register and bad predictions are treated as reality. It is an interesting mental condition.

  13. Fred Magyar says:

    Really cool potentially disruptive new material developed at University of Colorado Boulder .

    http://www.colorado.edu/today/2017/02/09/newly-engineered-material-can-cool-roofs-structures-zero-energy-consumption

    Newly engineered material can cool roofs, structures with zero energy consumption

    A team of University of Colorado Boulder engineers has developed a scalable manufactured metamaterial — an engineered material with extraordinary properties not found in nature — to act as a kind of air conditioning system for structures. It has the ability to cool objects even under direct sunlight with zero energy and water consumption.

    When applied to a surface, the metamaterial film cools the object underneath by efficiently reflecting incoming solar energy back into space while simultaneously allowing the surface to shed its own heat in the form of infrared thermal radiation.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Not sure I understand how this would be much superior to a white surface coating or white roof coloring. They claim a radiative cooling of 93 w/m2. The input from sun can be up to 1000 w/m2. That would make the outgoing radiation more than 1000 w/m2 at noon.

      I use a light colored roofing material with a vented cooling system below the roof sheathing and insulation below that. Any heat buildup draws air up behind the roof through vented soffits and out a vent at the peak. All passive and only a little added expense for the foam insulator board below the roof sheathing. No plastic to degrade. Fiberglass insulation goes behind the insulator board. There is also insulation in the attic floor and vents on end walls.

      I wonder how Solar City handles the heat increase from the roof tile solar PV which are a dark color.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Not too sure either. I wanted to read the full paper but it is behind a paywall…

        In any case:

        The material takes advantage of passive radiative cooling, the process by which objects naturally shed heat in the form of infrared radiation, without consuming energy. Thermal radiation provides some natural nighttime cooling and is used for residential cooling in some areas, but daytime cooling has historically been more of a challenge. For a structure exposed to sunlight, even a small amount of directly-absorbed solar energy is enough to negate passive radiation.

        The challenge for the CU Boulder researchers, then, was to create a material that could provide a one-two punch: reflect any incoming solar rays back into the atmosphere while still providing a means of escape for infrared radiation. To solve this, the researchers embedded visibly-scattering but infrared-radiant glass microspheres into a polymer film. They then added a thin silver coating underneath in order to achieve maximum spectral reflectance.

        While I’m a big fan of painting roofs white to increase their reflectivity the claim for this material is that it can even be applied directly to solar panels to cool them thereby increasing their efficiency. I don’t think painting a solar panel white would do a whole lot to increase its efficiency, I have an old 50 Watt panel that I’m not using, I’ll go paint it white and stick it out in the sun just to see if it produces a bit more electricity tha way.

        I’ll let you know how it goes… 😉

        • GoneFishing says:

          I would assume they leave out the reflective backing on the solar panels, otherwise it would block the light.

  14. Fred Magyar says:

    Poor exploited Germans who have to pay so much for their electricity as it is will take another hit to their pocket books… Standby for massive influx of German immigrants to the US. 3, 2, 1, 0…. Crickets, Well maybe not.

    http://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/eu-clears-german-plan-for-electric-vehicle-charging-network/57127513

    BRUSSELS, – The European Commission said on Monday it had approved German plans for an infrastructure network for charging electric vehicles across the country.

    The plan, at a total cost of 300 million euros ($319.4 million) over four years, will require that the electricity comes from renewable energy sources, with contracts awarded through an open tender process.

    I guess the Germans just don’t get it!

  15. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    DanP66:

    Forgive me, but that comment is just a bit over the top…

    Tell you something else, if you look back through history, MOST dictatorships and strong men have come from the left, not the right. Mao and Lennon are just the best examples…

    Paul:

    Lennon? Was that John Lennon? That may be why the Beatles collapsed in civil war and riots after he and Yoko assumed the reins of power.

    Burritonomics:

    Yes, but we all know history has shown McCartneyism is the real winner of that struggle.

    John:

    Supported by ringoistic attitudes among a drum beating population.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      MOST dictatorships and strong men have come from the left, not the right. Mao and Lennon are just the best examples…

      Really?! You’re 100% sure about that?

      Right wing and Right wing military dictatorships throughout the world… Source Wikipedia

      Albania Principality of Albania, Albanian Republic, Albanian Kingdom None 1922–1939 Zog
      Austria Federal State of Austria Fatherland’s Front 1934–1938 Engelbert Dollfuss, Kurt Schuschnigg
      Azerbaijan Republic of Azerbaijan New Azerbaijan Party 1993–present Heydar Aliyev, Ilham Aliyev
      Bulgaria Kingdom of Bulgaria None
      1923–1926
      1934–1945
      Aleksandar Tsankov
      Kimon Georgiev
      Boris III
      Kiril
      Croatia Independent State of Croatia Croatian Revolutionary Movement 1941–1945 Ante Pavelić
      Cyprus Republic of Cyprus EOKA B 1974 Nikos Sampson
      Estonia[citation needed] Republic of Estonia None 1934–1940[2] Konstantin Päts
      Finland Republic of Finland National Progressive Party 1918–1951 Risto Ryti
      France French State Collaborationist government 1940–1944 Philippe Pétain
      Georgia[citation needed] Republic of Georgia Union of Citizens of Georgia 1995–2003 Eduard Shevardnadze
      Germany Third Reich NSDAP 1933–1945 Adolf Hitler
      Greece
      Second Hellenic Republic
      Kingdom of Greece
      Hellenic State
      Kingdom of Greece
      Military
      4th of August Regime
      Collaborationist government
      Regime of the Colonels
      1925–1926
      1936–1941
      1941–1944
      1967–1974
      Theodoros Pangalos
      Ioannis Metaxas
      Georgios Tsolakoglou, Konstantinos Logothetopoulos, Ioannis Rallis
      Georgios Papadopoulos
      Hungary Kingdom of Hungary
      None
      Arrow Cross Party
      1920–1944
      1944–1945
      Miklós Horthy
      Ferenc Szálasi
      Italy
      Kingdom of Italy
      Italian Social Republic
      National Fascist Party
      Republican Fascist Party
      1922-1943
      1943–1945
      Benito Mussolini
      Benito Mussolini
      Latvia Republic of Latvia Latvian Farmers’ Union (disbanded after coup) 1934–1940 Kārlis Ulmanis
      Lithuania Republic of Lithuania Lithuanian Nationalist Union 1926–1940 Antanas Smetona
      Netherlands Reichskommissariat Niederlande National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands 1940–1945 Anton Mussert
      Norway Reichskommissariat Norwegen Nasjonal Samling 1940–1945 Vidkun Quisling
      Poland Second Polish Republic Sanation 1926–1939 Józef Piłsudski and Piłsudski’s colonels
      Portugal
      Portuguese First Republic
      Portuguese First Republic
      Ditadura Nacional
      Estado Novo
      Military
      None
      Military
      National Union
      1915
      1917–1918
      1926–1933
      1933–1974
      Joaquim Pimenta de Castro
      Sidónio Pais
      Óscar Carmona
      António de Oliveira Salazar, Marcelo Caetano
      Romania Kingdom of Romania
      National Renaissance Front
      Antonescu’s government with the Iron Guard
      None
      1938–1940
      1940–1941
      1941–1944
      Carol II
      Ion Antonescu with Horia Sima
      Ion Antonescu
      Right wing dictatorships source Wikipedia

      Serbia Serbia
      None
      Yugoslav National Movement
      1941–1945 Milan Nedić
      Slovakia First Slovak Republic Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party – Party of Slovak National Unity 1939–1945 Jozef Tiso
      Spain
      Kingdom of Spain
      Spanish State/Kingdom of Spain
      Spanish Patriotic Union
      Falange
      1923–1930
      1939–1977
      Miguel Primo de Rivera
      Francisco Franco
      Yugoslavia Kingdom of Yugoslavia
      Royal
      Yugoslav Radical Union
      1929–1941
      Alexander I of Yugoslavia
      Prince Paul of Yugoslavia
      Milan Stojadinović

      In Asia:

      Republic of China Republic of China Kuomintang 1925–1989
      Chiang Kai-shek
      Chiang Ching-kuo
      South Korea Republic of Korea Various 1961–1987
      Park Chung-hee
      Chun Doo-hwan
      Japan Empire of Japan Imperial Rule Assistance Association 1930s–1945
      Fumimaro Konoe
      Hideki Tojo
      Thailand Kingdom of Thailand Khana Ratsadon 1927–1957 Plaek Phibunsongkhram
      Philippines Republic of the Philippines
      Nacionalista Party
      Kilusang Bagong Lipunan
      1965–1986 Ferdinand Marcos
      Cambodia
      Kingdom of Cambodia
      Khmer Republic
      Social Republican Party
      Sangkum
      1968–1975 Lon Nol

      Then we have right wing military dictatorships:

      Mengistu Haile Mariam, Aman Mikael Andom and Atnafu Abate, leaders of the Ethiopian military junta.
      Algeria (1965–1976; 1992–1994; 2011)
      Benin (1963–1964; 1965–1968; 1969–1970; 1972–1975)
      Burkina Faso (1966–1977; 1980–1991; September 17-September 23, 2015)
      Burundi (1966–1974; 1976–1979; 1987–1992)
      Central African Republic (1966–1979; 1981–1986; 2003–2005; 2013–2014)
      Chad (1975–1979; 1982–1989)
      Comoros (1999–2002)
      Democratic Republic of the Congo (1965–1971; 1971–1997)
      Republic of the Congo (1968–1969; 1977–1979)
      Côte d’Ivoire (1999–2000)
      Egypt (1953–1956; 2011–2012)
      Equatorial Guinea (1979–1987)
      Ethiopia (1974–1987)
      The Gambia (1994–1996)
      Ghana (1966–1969; 1972–1975; 1975–1979; 1981–1993)
      Guinea (1984–1990; 2008–2010)
      Guinea-Bissau (1980–1984; 1999; 2003; April 12, 2012 – May 11, 2012)
      Lesotho (1986–1993, 2014)
      Liberia (1980–1984)
      Libya (1969–1977; 1977–2011)
      Madagascar (1972–1976)
      Mali (1968–1992; March 21, 2012 – April 12, 2012)
      Mauritania (1978–1979; 1979–1992; 2005–2007; 2008–2009)
      Niger (1974–1989; 1996; 1999; 2010–2011)
      Nigeria (1966–1975; 1975–1979; 1983–1985; 1985–1993; 1993–1998; 1998–1999)
      Rwanda (1973–1975)
      Sao Tome and Principe (1995; 2003)
      Sierra Leone (1967–1968; 1992–1996; 1997–1998)
      Somalia (1969–1976; 1980–1991)
      Sudan (1958–1964; 1969–1971; 1985–1986; 1989–1993)
      Togo (1967–1979)
      Uganda (1971–1979; 1985–1986)
      North America[edit]
      Costa Rica (1868–1870; 1876–1882; 1917–1919)
      Cuba (1933; 1952–1959)
      Dominican Republic (1899; 1930–1961)
      El Salvador (1885–1911; 1931–1982)
      Guatemala (1944–1945; 1954–1957; 1957–1966; 1970–1986)
      Haiti (1950; 1956–1957; 1986–1990; 1991–1994)
      Honduras (1956–1957; 1963–1971; 1972–1982)
      Mexico (1876; 1877–1880; 1884–1911)
      Nicaragua (1937–1956; 1967–1979)
      Panama (1968–1989)
      South America[edit]
      Argentina (1930–1932; 1943–1946; 1955–1958; 1966–1973; 1976–1983)
      Bolivia (1839–1843; 1848; 1857–1861; 1861; 1864–1872; 1876–1879; 1899; 1920–1921; 1930–1931; 1936–1940; 1946–1947; 1951–1952; 1964–1966; 1970–1979;1980-1982)
      Brazil (1964–1985)
      Chile (1924–1925; 1925; 1932; 1973–1990)
      Colombia (1953–1958)
      Ecuador (1876–1883; 1935–1938; 1947; 1963–1966; 1972–1979)
      Paraguay (1940-1948; 1954-1989)
      Peru (1842–1844; 1865–1867; 1872; 1879–1881; 1914–1915; 1930–1939; 1948–1956; 1962–1963; 1968–1980)
      Suriname (1980–1988)
      Uruguay (1865–1868; 1876–1879; 1933–1938; 1973–1985)
      Venezuela (1858–1859; 1859–1861; 1861–1863; 1908–1913; 1922–1929; 1931–1935; 1948–1958)
      Asia[edit]
      Burma (Myanmar) (1962–1974; 1988–2011)
      Fiji (2006–2014)
      Iran (1953–1957; 1978–1979)
      Iraq (1933–1935; 1937–1938; 1949–1950; 1952–1953; 1958–1963; 1963–1979)
      South Korea (1961–1963, 1980)
      Pakistan (1958–1971; 1977–1988; 1999–2008)
      Syria (1949; 1951–1954; 1963–1972)
      Thailand (1958–1973; 1991-1992; 2006–2007; 2014–present)
      Turkey (1960–1961; 1971–1973; 1980–1983)
      North Yemen (1962–1967; 1974–1982)
      Europe[edit]
      Bulgaria (1934–1935; 1944–1946)
      France (1870–1871)
      Greece (1909–1910; 1922–1924; 1925–1926; 1933; 1936–1941; 1967–1974)
      Poland (1926–1935; 1981–1983)
      Portugal (1926–1933)
      Russia (1918–1920)
      Spain (1923–1930; 1936-1975)

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        DanP66:

        ‘Forgive me, but that comment is just a bit over the top…

        Tell you something else, if you look back through history, MOST dictatorships and strong men have come from the left, not the right. Mao and Lennon are just the best examples…’

        Paul:

        ‘Lennon? Was that John Lennon? That may be why the Beatles collapsed in civil war and riots after he and Yoko assumed the reins of power.’

        Burritonomics:

        ‘Yes, but we all know history has shown McCartneyism is the real winner of that struggle.’

        John:

        ‘Supported by ringoistic attitudes among a drum beating population.’ “

  16. Duncan Idaho says:

    Strong El-Nino now being shown this Fall

    http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/cfs-mon/2017021218/cfs-mon_01_ssta_global_9.png

    We shall see- it is early

    • Javier says:

      IRI doesn’t seem convinced.

      “During early February 2017 the tropical Pacific SST anomaly was between 0 and -0.5C, in the cool ENSO-neutral range. Some of the atmospheric variables across the tropical Pacific still show a weak La Niña pattern, while others have weakened to a neutral condition. The upper and lower atmospheric winds only weakly suggest a strengthened Walker circulation, but the pattern of cloudiness and rainfall remains suggestive of La Niña. The collection of ENSO prediction models indicates SSTs, no longer at the threshold of La Niña, are likely to remain neutral through May 2017, with a chance of El Niño development later in the year.”

      http://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/

      Must be because they have been wrong so often in the past that ENSO predictions are not worth much.

  17. Ed says:

    As this was a blog about energy, I thought I’d post something about energy !!

    Earlier I posted the figures for UK renewable energy production. As promised here is the figure for the US.

    2015 US renewable energy production = 4.7 kWh/day per person

    (549,530 GWh shared by 321.4 million people over 365 days)

    Estimated energy consumption in US is 200 to 250 kWh/day per person.

    Please feel free to ignore the historical figures I’ve just given if it doesn’t tally with your version of reality. Denial runs deep, even here on the blog.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *