99 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, January 30, 2020”

  1. Volkswagen Group Components opened the Group’s first plant for recycling electric car batteries in Salzgitter. The aim is the industrialized recovery of valuable raw materials such as lithium, nickel, manganese and cobalt in a closed loop together with aluminum, copper and plastics, achieving a recycling rate of more than 90% over the long term.

    https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/01/20210130-vwgc.html

    GM plans to become carbon-neutral in its global products and operations by 2040 and has committed to setting science-based targets to achieve carbon neutrality. The company has also signed the Business Ambition Pledge for 1.5⁰C, an urgent call to action from a global coalition of UN agencies, business and industry leaders.

    https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/01/20210129-gm.html

    Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. has set the goal to achieve carbon neutrality across the company’s operations and the life cycle of its products by 2050. “Life cycle” includes raw material extraction, manufacturing, use, and the recycling or reuse of end-of-life vehicles. As part of this effort, by the early 2030s every all-new Nissan vehicle offering in key markets—Japan, China, the US and Europe—will be electrified.

    https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/01/20210127-nissan0.html

    Steelmaker Cleveland-Cliffs has set a target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2030. This goal represents combined Scope 1 (direct) and Scope 2 (indirect) greenhouse gas emission reductions on a mass basis (metric tons per year) compared with 2017 baseline levels.

    https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/01/20210129-cc.html

    In remarks made at the signing of his Executive Order on Strengthening American Manufacturing, President Biden said that he would replace the federal government’s fleet of vehicles with electric vehicles made in the US.

    https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/01/20210126-biden.html

    Boeing is committing that its commercial airplanes are capable and certified to fly on 100% sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) by 2030. Boeing has previously conducted successful test flights replacing petroleum jet fuel with 100% sustainable fuels.

    https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/01/20210124-boeing.html

    1. Good news and good links.

      I just wonder what the energy source will be for an electrified US; charging up, etc. ? My own belief is the need for investments in terrific city transit, and institution of huge carbon taxes to raise the gas price at the pump. I just worry many many think we will segue into an electrified world and still live the way we do. Jetsons light.

      I live in Canada where our gas prices are easily 2X what the average US price is, and we do the producing for God’s sake, yet still remain the largest supplier of imported FF to US. When oil hit $147/bbl another lifetime ago, the fill cost for my work truck was over $150. We bought a Yaris to replace it using a scrap it program, and additional purchase incentives for a fuel efficient vehicle. That was in 2009 and we are still driving the Yaris.

      The electrification for the transport fleet is certainly enticing, but a real win would be to remove vehicles from the road as much as possible. Far from altruism or concern for the environment, GM and ilk know the concerns and simply want to rope customers into more and more expensive/complex products. Financed. Complex super expensive electric cars are pretty much rolling computers and entertainment centers with protected software to maintain ‘customer loyalty’. GM or Tesla parts, only, (thank you very much). Plus, a software ‘designed-in’ need to only be serviced at their repair locations/dealerships.

      If trends are any indication, debt levels are unsustainable. How is a working family going to buy and maintain an electric vehicle, (with limited range), on a stagnant or declining real income? Many folks can’t even afford housing. Grocery prices are climbing beyond belief. Electric transport isn’t reality for many many people, if not most.

      I’ve got some cash and could purchase whatever. Would I waste it on a new car? Not likely and never. We drive that 12 year old Yaris, carefully maintained, when we actually need to go somewhere. I have a 40 year old well maintained Westfalia which is mostly garaged, but we do use it for short trips and as our motel room when we visit other family on Vancouver Island. We don’t put many km on it at all. My work vehicle (retired but still work our property, construction, etc) is a 19 year old GMC gas 1/2 ton PU…2 wheel drive. I’m 65 and will run this truck another 15 years, anyway. If we ever leave our rural home we’ll live in a walkable town. I don’t think an electric car is even remotely possible for us. Wouldn’t even consider it. I think it is over hyped and there are many other options that will be just as good for the environment, starting with driving less and a society that divorces itself from expensive vehicles and universal personal transport.

      This isn’t an either/or situation, imho

      regards

      1. Nice overview on the Electric Vehicle scam Paulo. Here in South Africa the working class use MILLIONS of minibus taxis to get to and fro from the Townships of Soweto Alex, etc, I would like to see how the Greenies are going to get the thugs owning and driving these mobile unroadworthy coffins off the streets and replaced them with EV’s??…Can’t wait, can’t wait.
        I’m in your age cohort Paulo and I agree on holding onto a work-on-it-still older carb vehicle, mine being a very hard wearing and faithful old 1987 1300cc Opel Kadette.
        Every time I put in my little 10l of 93 fuel somebody wants to purchase the old girl…HMMMM I wonder why?

        1. Shouldn’t be hard to replace taxis because electricity is much cheaper than oil. So replacement is in the interest of the taxi owner.

          EVs are cheaper to build and much more robust than combustion engines as well, so when those taxis fall apart, which they will, they will be replaced by cheap EVs, probably from India or China.

          Electric tuktuks are already spreading in India. Now they’re coming to East Africa as well.

          https://cleantechnica.com/2020/12/04/gayam-motor-works-sokowatch-launch-east-africas-first-commercial-electric-tuk-tuks/

        2. DaveBee. I don’t know what you mean by scam.
          But I do know that for the large majority people who aren’t on their last vehicle (they are younger) or are the kind of people who do a great job of keeping their vehicle for 20 years, that the next vehicle they purchase after 2023 will likely have a plug [full electric or plug-in hybrid].
          And the sense of freedom and control that an individual can have by producing all of their own energy (solar on the roof or field) for transportation will become a thing that everyone will cherish, and a huge amount of people will be able to make it be true.
          And they will rejoice in never going to the petrol station ever again.
          And over the longterm, people will be very pleased with the money they save on transport.

          I can tell from your comments that you haven’t been keeping up with the changes in the industry (solar and vehicle). It is a huge industrial revolution happening right before our eyes.
          The camshaft, the carburetor, the radiator and the piston rings are all things that are heading towards the Internal Combustion Engine Museum over the next 10-20 years.

      2. Paulo,

        Prices for EVs will come down, people will be able to drive 12 year old EVs, and this is about the future, not everyone is 65 and living in a rural area. I live in a fairly rural area with population density of my county at about 45 people per square mile, EV works fine here, though I agree they are currently too expensive for most, in 5 years the price will be more reasonable and cost of ownership is already competitive for some EVs compares to ICEV.

        The complaint of proprietary parts applies to Toyota vehicles as well as every other new vehicle, nothing special about EVs in that regard. Also far fewer moving parts in an EV so less prone to mechanical failure.

      3. Hi Paulo,
        I share your concerns, but I’m not worried at all about having sufficient grid sourced or home grown electricity to charge any number of electric cars and trucks,except maybe in remote areas such as may be your own case.

        It seems to me that it’s a given,barring an economic collapse, that we’ll be building wind and solar farmsout the ying yang from here on out any place the wind and sun cooperate on a reasonably regular basis,and that we will also be building thousands of miles of new interconnecting high voltage transmission lines to get the juice where it needs to go here in the lower forty eight.

        I’ve personally never bought a new vehicle in my entire life, because I prefer to leverage my substantial jackass of all trades mechanical skills by driving old cheap vehicles… and investing the money most people spend on new cars.

        My guess is that there will be a plentiful supply of reasonably affordable used conventional cars and pickup trucks available for another ten to twenty years in large part BECAUSE so many people will be trading them off and buying new electric cars.

        1. Electricity enjoyed robust growth for decades, mostly thanks to air conditioning, the electricity company’s best friend. But demand has leveled off recently. It peaked in the US about 2005.

          One reason to be optimistic about EVs is that utilities will be pushing them as hard as they push air conditioning. So the oil industry isn’t just combating “hippies”, “tree huggers” or “greenies”. For the first time, there is a conflict of interest between the oil industry and the electricity industry.

          1. Not quite 12 yo but driving a 2013 Leaf since 2015. Replaced the starter battery and the tires at around 60K miles (about 10K/yr in miles). Spend about 1/4 on electricity to run it compared with gas, from some rough estimates. No oil changes. No other maintenance. No issues on the horizon.

            1. In the UK, we pay ca. 65% of pump price, petrol and diesel, in tax.
              The tax on EV electricity is 5%.
              The price of electricity is rising fast. Typically, 1kWh is about £0.15. It is higher in EU countries with a greater proportion of renewable generation, up to £0.28 in Denmark.
              If one removes the tax element, the energy cost per mile of running an EV in the UK is greater than running it on FF, for a vehicle of the same size.
              Electricity is generated with the mix: 40% nat. gas, 18% nuclear, 20% wind, 10% biomass, 4% solar. Minor contributions from other sources. Coal, while being phased out, still provides winter peak and backup.
              A reliable diesel car can be bought for £7,000, with 150,000 miles left in it. It has a range of up to 800 miles, and takes 3 minutes to refuel.
              Where I live, in central England in a terraced house, an EV would be of no use whatsoever. Limited range, few charging points nearby, and much greater purchase price, including second-hand.
              It will take a large change in the balance of funding and subsidies before EVs become mainstream here. European governments will have to level up tax revenue from EVs with that from IC cars, making them more expensive to run. And this excludes annual road tax subsidy, city low-emission zone subsidy, parking subsidies, etc.
              Omitting any judgment on the air quality benefits of electric, the cost of running an EV in future will become equal to or greater than that of a FF vehicle.
              Heavy goods vehicles will remain diesel powered for many years to come. Their capital cost, and high power demand when recharging, will be barriers to adoption. I await the installation of multiple 1MW HGV charging ports at energy stations with eager anticipation.
              Of course we may see a large rise in the price of oil, which would push things in favour of electric ;-).

            2. Good points, Jonathan, but still EV adoption in England is skyrocketing.

            3. £7000 will buy you a 24KWh Nissan Leaf with 40,000 miles on it. It will give 100 miles range if driven at moderate speeds. (60mph max). Have you checked zapmap recently ? A lot of supermarkets are installing chargers. They generally charge 30p/KWh which does reduce the financial benefit. It will be 5 years before the second hand market will be offering 200+ miles range at that price.
              350KW chargers are installed and running in the UK today, although no car yet charges at more than 250KW.
              It will take time for the latest EV technology to filter down to the lower end of the second hand market, maybe another 10 years.

            4. @Stephen:

              But think what will happen to EV sales if/when all subsidies are removed.
              These are at present: (UK)
              £3000 max. against a new vehicle.
              5% tax on electricity, as compared to £0.80/litre petrol/diesel. (65% today.)
              No City low-emissions charge, currently £15/day in London for cars.
              Reduced annual parking charges.
              Zero VED (annual road tax), as compared to typically £100 – £300 for FF cars.
              Subsidies for renewable power generation, including prioritised grid access, which seem nonetheless to fail to stem an ever increasing price/kWh.
              One gets the impression that drivers are being bribed to buy/rent an EV.
              FF vehicle taxes are gobbled up by a grateful government and by local councils. I don’t have the numbers to hand, but around £50bn/year.
              These will have to be replaced by equivalent taxes on EVs going forward, making their apparent cost advantage much less.

            5. FF vehicle taxes … will have to be replaced by equivalent taxes on EVs going forward, making their apparent cost advantage much less.

              No, they really don’t. Taxes on petrol & diesel date back to when the UK imported all of it’s oil. They were intended to reduce that dependency. On the other hand, electricity is a domestic product.

              Oil has very large external costs: pollution, security of supply, etc. There’s a very good reason for heavy taxes on oil to help accelerate the transition away from it.

              As oil consumption falls, fuel taxes will fall. For the moment, that loss is pretty small, and the simple thing to do is just raise the rate (which is far too low in the US). If Murdoch media manage to whip up enough anti-fuel tax fury, then other taxes should be raised – no particular reason for it to be on electricity, despite it being a conservative meme.

            6. Mr Madden , I am impressed by your arithmetic . Both your posts confirm my POV that EV ‘s are another ponzi like shale . Shale lasted for 10/12 years this will go on till 2025 , till then let us all enjoy the musical chairs as each chair is removed from our unsustainable lifestyle .

            7. Nick G , you said “On the other hand, electricity is a domestic product.” . Well the UK imported 1.7 million tons of NG from Norway , several million tons of LNG from Qatar and the most stupid of it all wooden pellets (bio mass ) from Georgia USA to produce electricity so that a paper shuffler from the city can show off in his Tesla . There is no free lunch .

            8. HiH,

              I agree, UK power isn’t 100% domestic, nor is it 100% low carbon: that’s something that will improve as they move more towards wind and solar.

              Those wood pellets are likely much better than coal, and could be used for seasonal backup, but they’re certainly not scalable. I’d like to see a real analysis of their environmental impact.

            9. @Nick

              Regarding replacement of FF pump taxes in the UK, the Chancellor of The Exchequer is eying pay-per-mile. I think this is bound to come, as car usage becomes easier to track and harder to fake.
              The alternative of specifically higher electricity tax for EVs is impractical because home-charging is favoured by those who can plug in at home, and perhaps have grid-isolated solar panels/storage batteries.
              Unlike ‘red diesel’, (diesel for off-road, with dye added), all electrons are the same!

              https://news.sky.com/story/road-pricing-sunak-eyes-40bn-tax-threat-from-electric-vehicle-drive-12133772

  2. Hello , everywhere all I see is how the world is going to back to pre covid . No talk about the nett ” energy cliff ” , no talk about how the energy complex is tied to the economy complex and the ecology complex . I guess we are all destined to learn our lesson the hard way . Fasten your seatbelts .

    1. Well, Goldman Sachs sees an “immediate” rebound in oil demand, by August this year. So, you don’t have long to wait. Or, you can go with projections (scenarios) five years hence and get pretty much any demand numbers you happen to favor.

      GOLDMAN EXPECTS OIL DEMAND TO REBOUND TO 100 MILLION BPD BY AUGUST

      “Goldman Sachs had another bullish message for oil markets this week, saying in a note that it expected global oil demand to recover to pre-pandemic levels of 100 million bpd by August this year. According to Goldman, the oil market was in a deficit of 2.3 million bpd in the final quarter of 2020. With supply still tight at the start of 2021, the immediate future for prices is bright despite expectations for a slow demand recovery.”

      https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Goldman-Expects-Oil-Demand-To-Rebound-To-100-Million-Bpd-By-August.html

      1. I’d love for life to be fully back to normal by August, but I’m kind of doubtful it will be by that soon. Next year is probably a better guess.

        1. MYBEANO sir . Your better guess is a worse guess . 2020 was bad ,2021 will be dreadful and 2022 will be a disaster . Take care and be well

      2. Doug , Goldman sees nothing except how to make profits . This is a classic case of them doing it by misdirection . GS always has its hands in the pockets , unfortunately your pockets . 🙂

    2. Mr Williams in your comment “maybe another 10 years.” . Well want to make a bet . By 2025 , Scotland will be out , Ireland will be united ,Wales might /might not live with England . England will be called ” Englandistan ” and the British Pound will be consigned to the dustbin of history . Try charging an EV with that . Adios .

      1. Hole in Head – Englandistan is as likely as Stados Unidos de America. Not.

    3. The UK can put enough turbines on the seas near U K shores to run all the light cars and trucks in the entire country……. given time.

  4. Anyone surprised?

    SEA LEVEL LIKELY TO RISE FASTER THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT

    “Researchers at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen have constructed a new method of quantifying just how fast the sea will react to warming. Their comparison of sea-level responsiveness in models with historical data shows that former predictions of sea level have been too conservative, so the sea will likely rise more and faster than previously believed.”

    https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sea-faster-previously-thought.html

    1. Doug , not me . The obstruction is the ostrich mode of thinking , the problem is ” When the ostrich buries it’s head in the sand it exposes its a*** for a kicking . ” Your posts are always illuminating .

      1. For some reason, your comment reminds me of a graphic I posted here awhile ago.

    2. The seas are part of The Earth’s Climate, and climate will continue to do what it will do.
      Relax, enjoy life.
      I don’t believe any of these doom predictions will occur.

      1. I had a coworker some years ago, who took the same attitude towards smoking. I doubt he’s still alive…

      2. EASTCOAST CHUCK —

        “I don’t believe any of these doom predictions will occur.”

        A scientific study by scientists quantifying just how fast the sea will react to global warming is not a “doom prediction.”

        1. The scientists working for state media enterprises are the ones coming up with the studies.

      3. East coast Chuck,

        According to one climatologist in the 1980’s London was suppose to be underwater by the turn of the century.

        A lot of nonsense wrapped up in pseudo-science.

  5. Hi Nick,
    Up thread you replied “Those wood pellets are likely much better than coal”, in a post about UK electricity.

    I’d like to challenge that assumption. Wood pellets are renewable in that you can grow more from the same land.
    But I am not sure at all if they are an improvement in CO2 emission (whole supply chain of both coal and pellets compared). Maybe worse. Maybe I’m wrong on this point.
    More importantly- if you are talking about a comparison of coal from underground mining (rather than strip/surface mine), the ecological destruction/habitat loss from biofuel production is worse , I assert. btw- underground mining of coal is 60% of world total.

    These comments are a reflection of my long-running tirade against industrial scale biofuels. The use of biofuels, on a scale greater than at home or on a farm, reflects a humanity in desperation- destroying vast habitat for a moment of combustion.
    Overshoot in the extreme.
    As I see it.

    1. Hickory,

      First, the key advantage of wood is that when you burn it there’s no net addition of CO2. Now, wood is relatively low density, so it’s possible that shipping it takes a lot of fuel, but…do you have numbers on that?

      When it comes to other ecological destruction: I believe these are old tree farms. I suspect there’s a big difference between running an old tree farm and clearing out rain forest for new farms. The people running these farms suggest that they’re a lot better than building a subdivision on the same land. Seems to make sense. Again, remember in my comment I said I thought that biofuels aren’t very scalable. In this case, size matters…

      1. “When it comes to other ecological destruction: I believe these are old tree farms.”

        That is one way to look at it.
        Calling a place farmland just because the wildlife and forest was cleared/exterminated a 100 years ago doesn’t give some kind of free pass on the ecological destruction that cropping entails- whether it is for pine, corn, palm oil, sugar cane, or whatever crop system you are talking about.

        We are witnessing a global extinction of wildlife on a scale seen rarely in the history of the world.
        As much good (productive and verdant) land needs to be left undisturbed as possible, since so little is left outside the grasp of the human machine.

        Europe should only be using biofuels derived from within its own borders.
        The idea that air travel will be enabled via biofuels is an ecological crime being imagined- just how many thousand non-human mammals will not live for just one flight?

        Another issue on this- add to your CO2 budget all the energy it takes to plant, harvest, process/refine, and ship biofuels to your CO2 equation- its far from simple as you suggest.
        Much has been written on this subject. A small example-
        https://theecologist.org/2014/mar/10/biofuel-and-biomass-sustainability-standards-are-pure-greenwash

        2. Hickory,

          I agree: wildlife habitat needs to be protected and expanded. The article you attached suggests that this is not yet as high a priority for most people (and their governments) as it should be. Until we educate enough people about that, it will be tough do the right thing with things like biofuels.

  6. I strongly agree with Hickory that industrial scale biofuels are a catastrophic mistake.

    We would be several times better off in terms of the cost in physical resources and manpower to put the same into efficiency and conservation.

    Consider a simple old farmhouse such as the one I live in. It would have cost the present day equivalent of no more than a couple of thousand dollars, probably less, to have used two by six or two by eight walls with twice the insulation, plus a full foot in the attic.
    That would have saved a couple of days work every year for the last fifty years getting in firewood, not to mention the expense and lost opportunity to use the time for something more productive.

    1. Agreed: efficiency is great. It’s extremely cost effective. And note that I agree with you about scale.

      The thing is, that seasonal backup probably only represents 5% or less of total annual kWhs. A large portion of that could be done with biomass.

      1. I’m not opposed to using biomass in principle for such a limited purposes as seasonal backup for wind and solar electricity. But in reality, we might actually and probably would get along easier and cheaper by continuing to use some gas or even coal, in terms of the overall big picture.

        What scares me is human nature in this respect. The green camp is apt to go all religious on us trying to do away with the last little bit of avoidable fossil fuel use ……… at a very high price.

        It’s best to use a little gas and save a ton of money and manpower……. not to mention the diesel fuel and trucks used to get biomass to a power plant. The SAVINGS should be spent on efficiency and conservation initiatives.

        Once we get locked into using any significant amount of biomass, the people in the business of producing it get busy lobbying for more and more and more…… and getting away from it seems to be impossible…… consider moonshine in gasoline for instance.

        It’s damned easy these days for people with an opportunity to make megabucks to use social media and useful idiots to convince the public they’re here to save us rather than screw us over.

        The amount of raw bullshit I’ve read coming from genuine agricultural professionals promoting switch grass for instance is staggering.

        There isn’t any huge amount of otherwise unused farm land to grow switchgrass. BIG LIE. It’s in pasture or hay or in the hands of people such as state park managers and national park managers who don’t WANT it farmed.

        You don’t have to use fertilizer and lime to maintain production long term. BIG LIE. Farms aren’t ecosystems. What you haul away you must replace, long term, when using industrial techniques.

        Switch grass is not much troubled with insects or disease. True on the SMALL scale. BIG LIE in large scale monoculture. I can’t think of a single crop ever that works long term using industrial techniques that isn’t subject to pests and disease problems. The best you can hope for is to use cultivars that are highly resistant…….. meaning less productive, and modify field operations to compensate…….. which also means lower production.

        The estimates used are way high for production without intensive management, harvest curing and shipping costs are way too low, etc.

        Pray for Sky Daddy to save us if we ever start using trees to make methanol to run cars.

        But hey, they get paid to say these things.

        1. Sounds reasonable.

          There are affordable ways to get rid of the last remnants of utility fossil fuel generation: overbuilding, long distance transmission, demand side management. Biomass provides about 1% of US power right now, but it’s not essential. We don’t need coal, especially.

          Examples:

          We find that by 2030 electricity systems comprised entirely of solar, wind and batteries (SWB) can provide both the cheapest power available and two to three times more total energy than the existing grid in the continental United States
          RethinkX new energy report: https://www.rethinkx.com/energy
          ————————-
          A new study published by the Energy Watch Group and LUT University, and funded by Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, states that it is not only possible for Europe to transition to a world powered 100% by renewables by 2050, but that it would create more jobs and be more cost effective than the present fossil fuel-led system.

          https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/12/11/policy-plan-for-rapid-transition-to-100-renewable-powered-europe-handed-to-politicians/
          ———-
          https://physicsworld.com/a/100-renewable-electricity-is-viable/
          ——————
          The University of Delaware study suggests that overbuilding wind is cheaper than backup. See pages 65 and 66.
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759
          From the abstract:
          We find that the least cost solutions yield seemingly-excessive generation capacity—at times, almost three times the electricity needed to meet electrical load.
          This is because diverse renewable generation and the excess capacity together meet electric load with less storage, lowering total system cost.
          At 2030 technology costs and with excess electricity displacing natural gas, we find that the electric system can be powered 90%–99.9% of hours entirely on renewable electricity, at costs comparable to today’s—but only if we optimize the mix of generation and storage technologies.

          1. >> A new study published by the Energy Watch Group <<

            Good content, but not sure a 2018 report classifies as a new study. But I do like the RethinkX approach…

            1. Yeah, I have to remember to include quotation marks to clarify when I’m providing text that was written by someone else at the time the study came out.

    2. Agreed about efficiency. And about scale (see my reply to Hickory).

      But seasonal backup could likely be provided with 5% of annual kWhs. A large portion of that could be handled by easily stored wood.

    1. Noem is a mask denier. I’m from Minnesota, you’re from Australia and so don’t know squat about what’s happening here with regard to the MAGA cultists.

      1. Covid Cafe:

        ‘Come in and enjoy a tea and scone in our conceptual retrospective of 2020, complete with floor arrows, asinine signage that say stuff like, ‘We’re all in this together’, control freak staff, mask decorations, wall art of people lining up outside and wearing masks off their noses and under their chins and whatnot, tv screens that play media agitprop clips of decontextualized and/or misleading rising death and case stats, and plexiglass everywhere, like between the seating, maybe with LOL and/or YOLO written on them in large black felt-tip markers, etc.’

        Personally, I like my anarchy without a governpimp mandatory mask mandate. Mmm, delicious. The food just goes in the pie-hole with minimal fuss, you see.

        You could go into a resto or cafe (get someone to secretly record the occasion from afar) and try to eat and drink, fumbly, with a mask on and off and halfway, and make all kinds of awkward slurpy, snorty fuss and noise like an old Jerry Lewis flick (or at least use your mask to wipe your mouth after each mouthful, or to blow your nose) to see how the patrons respond and as a social commentary. If successful, upload to YT or, instead, some non-deplatforming outfit, ideally owned by older kids, rather than the younger ones they have.

        But what, or, rather, WTF, is a mask denier? Someone who doubts a mask’s existence? ^u^
        Take a look around you! 😀

        A little more seriously, though, I recently came up with a stupid joke that I have been testing to somewhat surprising acclaim, and so I’ll test it on you here…

        Joke:
        What’s someone wearing a mask, alone, with no one in the vicinity and with no immediate intent to be with anyone, doing?
        Maskurbating.

        Whaddaya think? I see it everywhere, along with used masks. Eeww.
        Should I print out the joke, maybe with some appropriate graphic, and post it, like those indie posters on electric poles, around town to see if the number of maskurbators goes up or down?

        Protection

        1. Caelan,

          I laughed.

          Covid is a scam and everyone knows it. But most want their free stimulus cheque so play the game.

  8. Here is something for Doug’s “it’s worse than we thought shelf”:

    “New research on forests and oceans suggest projections of future warming may be too conservative, with serious consequences.
    …
    ‘The take-home point here’, says Mann, ‘is that once again we are learning that the uncertainties are not breaking in our favor,” he said. “If anything, the impacts of climate change are proving to be worse than we predicted.'”

    http://www.climatecodered.org/2021/01/new-research-on-forests-and-oceans.html#more

    This is an excellent overview of our predicament from early in 2019, although I think he omits to mention the issues we have irrespective of climate change and which are almost certain to get worse if we try to solve the greenhouse gas problem under global capitalism – which we will (i.e. soil degradation, mineral depletion, fish stock collapse, water shortages, biodiversity loss); and I’d question his assertion that the risk of our bringing about our own extinction is vanishing small (maybe not this century but a few thousand years is not much different to a hundred in geological terms:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRb9Xx7jlKM

    1. Mann is so thoroughly discredited that I can only take it your having a laugh by sharing his commentary.

      1. STEVEN —

        Some of Dr Mann’s awards and honors; maybe you would be so kind as to list a few of your climate science credentials. Thanks in advance.

        Mann’s dissertation was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize in 1997 as an “outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences” at Yale University.

        His co-authorship of a scientific paper published by Nature won him an award from the Institute for Scientific Information in 2002, and another co-authored paper published in the same year won the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s outstanding scientific publication award. In 2002 he was named by Scientific American as one of fifty “leading visionaries in science and technology.”

        The Association of American Geographers awarded him the John Russell Mather Paper of the Year award in 2005 for a co-authored paper published in the Journal of Climate.

        The American Geophysical Union awarded him its Editors’ Citation for Excellence in Refereeing in 2006 to recognize his contributions in reviewing manuscripts for its Geophysical Research Letters journal.

        The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other “scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports”, with a personalized certificate “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”, celebrating the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC.

        In 2012, he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union and awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union for “his significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions.”

        Following election by the American Meteorological Society he became a new Fellow of the society in 2013. In January 2013 he was designated with the status of distinguished professor in Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.

        In September 2013, Mann was named by Bloomberg Markets in its third annual list of the “50 Most Influential” people, included in a group of “thinkers” with reference to his work with other scientists on the hockey stick graph, his responses on the RealClimate blog “to climate change deniers”, and his book publications. Later that month, he received the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science.

        On April 28, 2014, the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley. In the same year, Mann was named as a Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information. In 2015 he was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and in 2016 he was elected Vice Chair of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate at the American Physical Society.

        On June 19, 2017, Climate One at the Commonwealth Club of California said that he would be honored with the 7th annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Science Communication.

        He received the James H. Shea Award from the National Association of Geoscience Teachers for his “exceptional contribution in writing or editing Earth science materials for the general public or teachers of Earth science.

        On February 8, 2018, the Center for Inquiry announced that Mann had been elected as a 2017 Fellow of its Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

        On February 14, 2018, the American Association for the Advancement of Science announced that Mann was chosen to receive the 2018 Public Engagement with Science award.

        On September 4, 2018, the American Geophysical Union announced Mann as the 2018 recipient of its Climate Communication Prize.

        On February 12, 2019, Mann and Warren Washington were named to receive the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement.

        In April 2020, he was elected member of the National Academy of Sciences. Along with Antonella Santuccione Chadha, he also received the World Sustainability Award from the MDPI Sustainability Foundation.

        1. Does Hockey Stick, Hide The Decline, or I have a Nobel Prize mean anything to you?

      2. Mr Haner , as one of the initial member of this forum my request is, back up your assertion with data and facts . Gentlemen on this forum are intelligent . Here only two things matter, first data and then facts . If you have neither please don’t waste time . The world stands at a critical juncture . Will our discussions save the planet ? Definitely not . All members here are no ” collapseniks” . We are all thinking and working how to soften the blow that ” peak oil” will bring to our lifestyle . Welcome to the forum . All contrary views are welcome provided backed by facts as Doug has done .

    2. Michael Mann lost a court case against someone willing to call out his BS and say that he should be put in a state penitentiary. Mann simply couldn’t produce data, over a long time too. Finally the judge just dismissed the case.

      1. “Climate change denial, or global warming denial is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[4][5][6] Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming self-label as “climate change skeptics”,[7][5] which several scientists have noted is an inaccurate description.[8][9][10] Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.[11] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism,[12][13] pseudoscience,[14] or propaganda.[15]”

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

  9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lByl4HuiexA

    I can see electric cars just a little bigger and nicer selling here in the USA like ice water in hell a few years down the road if there’s a serious oil supply problem. Millions of people could and would buy one so as to stretch their gasoline ration, or simply to have a reliable car given that they don’t NEED long range or lots of room.

    I think for a wild ass guess that this car could be up sized enough to accommodate fat Yankee butts and safety regulations and still be sold for less than ten grand.

    It’s going to be a long time before there are enough cheap used electric cars for working and poor people to afford one.

    1. “I can see electric cars just a little bigger and nicer selling here in the USA like ice water in hell a few years down the road if there’s a serious oil supply problem. Millions of people could and would buy one so as to stretch their gasoline ration, or simply to have a reliable car given that they don’t NEED long range or lots of room.”

      It will probably be both increasing use of electric cars and rationing of gas/diesel going forward. The good thing about electric cars is that a lot of the battery can be recycled as much as 80-95%, keeping especially nickel prices down but maybe also lithium prices sufficiently down in the process (depending on demand). So the bottle neck could rather be rare earth metals used in those super magnets used in those gigant 200m wind power mills currently being constructed. They are needed to electrify in a “green way”. But if that is the hurdle; and mining rare metals can be compared to gold/silver mining while also being toxic, so be it. It is the cost of trying to make the leap to become significantly less fossil fuel reliant. Same thing with cobalt used in batteries; not toxic, but rare and often a by product metal to silver or copper mining.

      I can see both offshore wind power and electric cars being pushed by the Biden administration. The EU is far ahead in this direction with Boris Johnson’s new green deal as poster child. But..I would never underestimate the US to catch up if the desire is there.

      1. At one time, a few years back, I expected oil to go high and stay high due to supply problems, to the point that the economy might collapse as a result.
        Lots of pessimists were predicting the death of suburbia, in particular, but I came to think otherwise in that particular respect, arguing that even doctors, lawyers and cpa’s would be glad to drive micro cars to and from down town every day in order to continue to live in their suburban mcmansions, because they wouldn’t really have any other choice.
        Comparable housing simply isn’t available in city centers except in very rare cases, and if the owners of suburban properties were to abandon them……… they would still be on the hook for the mortgages.

        At that time, we could have had affordable tiny electric cars with maybe thirty or forty miles of range at prices professionals could easily have paid.

        Now it’s looking like short range commuter cars without the bells and whistles could be built here in the USA for as little as seven or eight thousand bucks. Sure such cars would be plain janes and cramped, but so long as SOME gasoline is still available, people who own a conventional car could keep it for the occasional trip or family occasion, while getting to work and getting errands done using the bare bones commuter car.

        Suburbia isn’t going to collapse due to peak oil.

        I’m actually getting comfortable with the idea that peak oil isn’t going to be the straw that breaks the back of the camel of industrial civilization.

    1. TESLA might and probably would imo be turning a real profit if not for the company’s extraordinary and unheard of fast expansion.

      I can’t think of another company that’s building capacity in capital intensive industries even half as fast. In a couple of years Tesla is going to be running three or four of the newest and most sophisticated automobile factories in the world……… where’s this going to leave the legacy car companies by comparison?

      So far as I have read, Tesla is making a killing on each car built in terms of the actual costs of materials and labor versus the selling price……… but there’s still a HUGE bill due for past expansion of the manufacturing facilities and research and development. Long term success depends on spreading these costs over the sale of more vehicles of course.

      MY opinion is that Tesla will succeed long term.

    1. SBB , the info you have is incorrect . It was a nothing burger that due to overreaction of the Indian government became a ” soggy burger ” laced with ” fungus sauce ” which the government has to eat . Let me explain what happened .
      The Indian capital is under siege by about half a million farmers since October demanding repeal of laws allowing corporatization of farming . What was originally an agitation has morphed into a ground movement with vast public support . The PM Mr Modi has a severe ego problem and imagines that he is Churchill , Eisenhower and Mandela rolled in one . His popularity has plummeted from 70% to 38% because of his high handedness an use of excessive force against a non violent protest .
      Now come along tweets from Rihanna and Greta supporting the protests . These are tweets from individuals and should have been overlooked . Mr Modi (big ego) took it as a personal affront . The more loyalists than the loyals in the foreign ministry retweeted ” this is an attack on our sovereignty ” . Further they got some local spineless celebrities’ ( film stars , sportsperson ) to reattack Greta . Greta retweeted ” I still continue to support the farmers ” . Result , the loyalists filed a police complaint against her ” for trying to breakup the country ” . Now it gets hilarious . Greta leaked that she will get a visa , go to India and report to the police as she is an accused . Hell broke loose in the ministry . Greta with all the world’s newsmen and camera’s is the last thing the govt wants at this time . So the complaint against Greta was withdrawn and a new complaint filed against a company that devolped software for ” the tool kit” that Greta is using on her website to promote the farmer agitation . Just so stupid . How do you prosecute a “tool kit ” ?
      With Mr Trump gone the media is looking for bites and they got it . WaPo , Al Jazeera , The Guardian etc put this on the front page , ramming the Indian government for use of “inappropriate force ” and giving Mr Modi a red face . The publicity has forced senate members and MP’s in UK to issue statements decrying Mr Modi . The farmers movement got a boost . That is the real story . Greta faces no probe because she is not in the police complaint . As to burning effigies , they are nothing but party workers of Mr Modi’s party showing their loyality . They get paid $ 10 per day . I can get paid demonstrators for any event at the same rate . No big deal here in India with 450 million unemployed . Relax , nothing is going to happen to Greta . 😉

    1. Shills & Trolls

      Not sure what’s worse, trolling or shilling for the big biz/gov status-quo, and if someone followed both those paths back, they’d inevitably lead to the same sorts of spiritual landfills.

      If so, I suppose if one is going to continue shilling for the status quo, they might as well attempt to make themselves appear as differentiated from the trolls as possible.

      1. The worst is an anarchist who is poorly educated and looking for attention

  15. Panasonic Is Quitting The Solar Panel Business

    “Recall, Panasonic also shares Tesla’s solar panel factory in Buffalo, NY but ended its partnership with the auto company last year. There have been no details on how any shutdown can, and will, further affect Tesla, but we will continue to monitor the situation closely.”

      1. Wait a minute… Did you write just before something about free stimulus cheques? ‘u^

  16. Empower Yourself Like Your Ancestors & Help Roll An Alternative Society To Get Out From Under The Heel of The State Before It Further Squishes You Like A Bug In Its Insectarium Made For You

    Domestic Terror is a Government Without Constraints

    “The five big constraints on governments are: political, economic, financial, geo-political and legal/constitutional.

    Seen in this light, even if true, that governments wanted to impose a totalitarian communist regime globally, surely they are constrained from doing so. Right? RIGHT? They can’t just fscking do it.

    But… all kinds of things I thought governments couldn’t just come out and do over the last year…. well they just came right out and did it. And just to really mess with my head, Papic added two wildcard constraints to his list: terrorism and pandemics.

    The problem is, those wildcards, they aren’t wildcard constraints – they’re wildcard enablers. Those two wildcards seem to have the ability to trump all normal constraints. Every one of those constraints went out the window because of the wildcards…

    Second passport and expat strategies won’t work if, as per the “World Debt Reset Program” outlined in the conspiracy theory, this happens simultaneously everywhere. Granted that seems farfetched, but the boundaries of the word “farfetched” have shifted dramatically since all this began.

    The question I keep coming back to is ‘What’s to stop them from trying it?’ One of my first articles that I wrote on my old blog said that:

    ‘The ultimate goal of the State is to cultivate absolute dependency on it by its subjects. This is because until this happens there is a real danger that those governed will one day wake up and realize that the State is not only entirely unnecessary but actually malignant; a malevolent force actively impoverishing society to the benefit of it’s elites’

    I think nation states do know this, and that the continuous iteration of failed policies painted all of them into a corner vis-à-vis the global economy and the financial system as we know it.”

    “My thesis is we, in part, monoculturalize/overspecialize ourselves– our humanity– we strip out and oversimplify our human ‘ecosystem’ so that it’s out of context and out of whack with our true nature– just like those palm oil plantations vis-a-vis Earth/nature. Practically the same thing.

    We career/job/overspecialize ourselves, and we effectively outsource; the raising of our children, our education, the growing of our food, the process of our water/wastes, the making of our clothes, the making of our general necessities, the building of our shelters and the initiation/maintenance/administration of those sorts of processes to big government/business.

    In effect we essentially turn ourselves, our lives, into a monoculture, like a palm oil plantation.

    That’s failure, baked-in.” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

    1. Caelan MacIntyre,

      Self reliance was a theme of the Carter administration. It was rejected by the electorate for big government and cradle to grave welfare. In your prognosis there’s the assumption the average person wants to be free from the tyranny of the state. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      Nor should blame solely lie with the state when the people advocated for successive governments promising more than the nation could afford.

      1. Hume, I have to head out shortly, but for now just to say that I am talking more in part about, say, ‘self-domestication’.
        I mean, if you feed a wild animal all the time or raise it in captivity, it will likely become dependent and unable to return to the wild.
        So, sure, people and other animals may prefer and choose ‘hand-feedings’, but I’m suggesting that there are serious ramifications to that.
        David Korowicz talks about this sort of idea now that I think about it. Maybe look up ‘How To Be Trapped’ by him.
        I might continue this later.

  17. New Study By Dr. Steven Quay Concludes that SARS-CoV-2 Came from a Laboratory
    Wuhan Institute of Virology Research in December 2019 Shows Evidence of Adenovirus Vaccine Experiments in Patients with COVID-19

    “SEATTLE, Jan. 29, 2021 /PRNewswire/ — A paper was published today by Dr. Steven Quay, M.D., PhD., CEO of Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATOS), entitled, ‘A Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived.’ The 193-page paper can be downloaded from Zenodo, a general-purpose open-access repository operated by CERN, here: https://zenodo.org/record/4477081# . A short ‘explainer’ video about the paper is here: https://zenodo.org/record/4477212#…

    The final conclusion is that it is a 99.8% probability SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory and only a 0.2% likelihood it came from nature.

    ‘Like many others, I am concerned about what appear to be significant conflicts of interest between members of the WHO team and scientists and doctors in China and how much this will impede an unbiased examination of the origin of SARS-CoV-2‘, said Dr. Quay.

    ‘By taking only publicly available, scientific evidence about SARS-CoV-2 and using highly conservative estimates in my analysis, I nonetheless conclude that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a laboratory. The additional evidence of what appears to be adenovirus vaccine genetic sequences in specimens from five patients from December 2019 and sequenced by the Wuhan Institute of Virology requires an explanation. You would see this kind of data in a vaccine challenge trial, for example. Hopefully the WHO team can get answers to these questions.’ “

    ‘Nothing to see here– just yet more tiresome conspiracy theorizing– move along please…’

    1. Ha! Ha!

      It is comical when a scientific paper is announced on a PR news site (actually named PRNewsWire), rather than in a peer-reviewed journal.

      Good times! Ha! Ha!

      1. Well, questioning the origins of SARS-CoV-2 was memory holed pretty quickly last year by those who control media narratives. When that happens there aren’t many places left where your research will be accepted are there?

        1. those who control media narratives.

          Well, who specifically are you referring to?

      2. “Zenodo is a general-purpose open-access repository developed under the European OpenAIRE program and operated by CERN. It allows researchers to deposit research papers, data sets, research software, reports, and any other research related digital artifacts. For each submission, a persistent digital object identifier (DOI) is minted, which makes the stored items easily citeable.” ~ Wikipedia

        The paper’s linked above (Zenodo) and that news site is just my selection from others that made the same announcement.
        How about downloading the paper and reading what you can of it?
        If you wish to bother, see also here.

        “Good times! Ha! Ha!” ~ GerryF

        If you read what the author actually writes, such as in the 2 highlighted sections of the quote I cited, the apparent implications actually seem pretty scary.

        1. Ha! Ha!

          There are no peer reviews from specialists in the field. The CERN repository is just that, a repository. CERN set up the repository for peer-reviewed papers there, but some people think posting it there is the same as publishing it.

          The author did say he sent it to 25 scientists, so before jumping on the bandwagon, it’s worth waiting to hear what they say, or more importantly what specialists in genetics and Bayesian analysis have to say. (Bayesian Analysis often leads non-specialists down a garden path). But a PR posting before having it reviewed by specialists is rarely proven out. There’s lot of history out there showing just that.

          There are lots of specialists who have already debunked the idea, pointing out that there are well-defined and established genetic changes that reflect a natural origin.

          I did enjoy the paper that Covid-19 was of alien origin.

          And on this site, someone did post a (PR) paper establishing that Covid-19 was a sign of the approach of the hidden planet Niburu.

          They’re all good fun, but i wouldn’t bet my weekly laundry money on it.

          1. Let’s not get too wound up there on your own straw man or men.

    2. New study from Dr Steven Quay concludes SARS-CoV-2 comes from a lab

      “Dr Steven Quay has published over 360 contributions to medicine and has been cited over 10,000 times, placing him in the top 1% of scientists worldwide. He holds 87 US patents and invented seven FDA-approved pharmaceuticals that have helped more than 80 million people. He is the author of the bestselling pandemic survival book, Stay Healthy: A Doctor’s Guide to Surviving the Coronavirus.

      To help find the truth and to get feedback on the methodologies used and the conclusions drawn in this article, a prepublication copy of this document has been sent to twenty-six scientists around the world, including currently WHO researchers. in Wuhan, Wuhan Institute of Virology scientists, as well as other leading virologists.

      Recall that in May 2020 Professor Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize in medicine, made an identical statement before being lynched by the media. Professor Tritto published a book ‘The chimera that changed the world’ at the beginning of August 2020 confirming this thesis. In July, Professor Montagnier and the mathematician Jean-Claude Perez had a publication on this subject accepted in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. In addition Luc Montagnier had confided to the microphone of Richard Boutry in the program the challenge of the truth confirming his statements of May 2020.”

      1. Yes. Luc Montagnier. He suggested a similar thing last spring. I remember looking him up, and found a specialist said “a conspiracy vision that does not relate to the real science”.

        Stephen Quay has written that bio blurb at the end of his paper. He says he’s in the top 1% of scientists based on his citations. Citations where? 10000 citations for 360 papers? An average of 30 per paper? That’s really not great. (It’s very common for researchers to cite their own papers as they extend their work.)

        “He is the author of the bestselling pandemic survival book, Stay Healthy: A Doctor’s Guide to Surviving the Coronavirus”. Checking quickly, this is a self-published e-book , which is available for $2.99, or if you have Kindle Unlimited it’s free. What does ‘best selling’ mean here?

        You shouldn’t believe everything you read!

        This news blurb (based on a press release by the author?), about a paper with a single-author, self-published, non-peer-reviewed, making large claims, has red flags all over it.

        Check back in a few weeks and see if the paper has legs. I’d be surprised.

        1. Lot’s of fluffy text from you that feels like some kind of embedded denial and/or distraction-from-inquiry, and with nothing really to back it up.

          See also here.

    3. It came from a lab? Well, like all great historians I ask the question – “so what?”

      It came from China. Whether it came from the wet market in China, or from a lab just down the road from the wet market in China, where staff study corona virus swabs taken from animals at the wet market…. So what? Who cares?

      I’m a planner. What’s the plan? Wear a mask and wash my hands- same plan. Lab or wet market- who cares? And why? Is it some cartoon villains being bad or something?

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_laboratory_biosecurity

  18. In the Race to Crack Covid-19, Scientists Bypass Peer Review

    “…researchers are scrambling to learn more about the virus. Their collective efforts have generated more than 1,900 papers, as doctors and scientists try to rapidly share new findings with each other and with the public.

    At stake are urgent unanswered questions about Covid-19…

    That flood of research has put new strain on a scientific process accustomed to vetting and publishing new results much more slowly. In traditional publishing, papers are read by at least two experts in the field — a process called peer review — which, at least in theory, helps catch mistakes and unsound science. The back-and-forth of review and revision can take months.

    Getting information out quickly during an epidemic is not necessarily something that traditional publishing has been able to keep up with. In the 2003 SARS epidemic, for example, 93 percent of the papers published about the spread of the outbreak in Hong Kong and Toronto didn’t actually come out until after the epidemic period was already over…”

    Bypassing Peer Review

    “Eugene Russo addresses the increasing problem of researchers bypassing the peer review process for publication in the popular media. There are many reasons for this, and they stem from the incompatibility of present-day peer review practices with the information age. This letter addresses peer review pros and cons (mainly for R&D) and presents an approach to overcome some of the more egregious roadblocks…

    There are many reasons to avoid peer review, including time delay, theft of ideas, leaking of ideas, incompetent reviewers, poor research, and financial gain…”

  19. Ah the 90’s, when cars didn’t have touch screens. That’s progress!

    Tesla: Recalled touchscreens were meant to only last 5-6 years

    “Tesla told regulators that the recalled touchscreens in nearly 135,000 Model S and Model X electric cars were only expected to last five to six years—much less than the average lifespan of cars on United States roads today.”

    https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1131184_tesla-recalled-touchscreens-were-meant-to-only-last-5-6-years

Comments are closed.