158 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, May 15, 2021”

  1. What Will It Take To Make Biden’s Climate Plan Work?

    By Rystad Energy – May 15, 2021, 4:00 PM CDT

    To reduce GHG emissions in the US by 50% by 2030, and do the legwork needed to continue on a climate-friendly path and meet further targets that are set for 2035 and 2050, our research team has devised a roadmap that is both balanced and conceivable. Here are the key elements of that roadmap:

    Reduction of US coal consumption by 65% by 2030 versus expected 2021 levels of about 500 million short tons

    Reduction of US oil consumption by 32% by 2030 vs estimated 2021 levels of 19 million bpd

    Reduction of US natural gas consumption by 27% by 2030 vs 2021 levels of 30 trillion cubic feet

    Share of battery electric cars in US’ new car sales needs to reach 24% in 2024 and 74% in 2028

    Share of non-fossil new truck sales in the US needs to reach 10% in 2024 and 49% in 2028

    Solar PV power output needs to grow from an estimated 100 TWh in 2021 to 2200 TWh in 2030

    Wind power output needs to grow from an estimated 400 TWh in 2021 to 2500 TWh in 2030

    Some 1500 GW of solar capacity and 700 GW of wind capacity needs to be added by 2030

    About 1800 GWh of batteries or flexible sources is needed to back-up solar and wind by 2030

    Some $2.5 trillion is needed for renewable investments from 2021 through 2030

    About 200 million tonnes of CCS capacity needs to be in operation in the US by 2030

    What makes a ‘Biden compliant’ energy mix achievable:

    1. The cost of solar PV is already cheaper than conventional power generation, with installed costs at approximately $1 billion per GW in 2021. This is expected to decline to $600 million per GW in 2030, or $1.2 billion per GW in 2030 including battery storage. There is a good business case to co-install batteries alongside solar plants, as the achieved price from hybrid projects would increase several times given that afternoon prices are on average two to four times higher than mid-day rates.

    2. continued- https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/What-Will-It-Take-To-Make-Bidens-Climate-Plan-Work.html

    1. I hope the panels are installed in the desert regions you guys have .

      These are a rough back of a fag packet calculations I have for the UK

      minimum: 0.001 GW maximum: 9.24 GW average: 1.278 GW for 2019

      1 GW nameplate: Capital cost of $1100/kW[1]

      1GW∗$1100kW≈$1.1 Billion /1.3349 USD = £0.824 billion per 1GW capacity

      average: 1.278 GW x 8760 hours per year = 11,125 GWh delivered , 11 TWh

      Installed UK capacity: 13.08 GW ( est £11 billion cost of install)

      for another 33 GW capacity it will cost £27.192 billion.

      so for a total investment of £40.3 billion we get a capacity of 46.1 GWh that delivers
      ( 46.1 x 0.0977) 4.5 GW average over the year.

      so thats 4.5 GW x 8760 hours = 39.4 TWh pa average. We use 260Twh .

      just for current demand. more needed to electrify transport

      Seems we have close cost figures for current Solar capacities .

      For the UK solar is perhaps not the best buy , the US should be better.

      Forbin

      PS: the “extra” 33GW capacity was used in my workings as this was the figure the UK government has planned for extra wind capacity . current and proposed below;-

      22GW fleet is averaged 6.22 GW x 8760 hours per year = 54.5 TWh

      33GW proposed fleet is ave 13.86 GW x 8760 hours per year = 121.413 Twh

      = 176 Twh pa (target is 260 Twh)

      PPS: China , India and Africa need to be on board too .

      1. I wonder how much more profit they make on the poly silicon using forced labor, compared to paying just barely above survival wages to workers free to come and go. That it’s pretty close to outright slavery in many respects is not to be questioned.

        But, having said this much,

        Slaves do after all have to be housed and fed, and to some extent, they must be trained and provided with some minimal medical care, etc.

        In the American South after the Civil War, it turned out that the landowners could actually do better in a lot of cases using share croppers rather than slaves, because they didn’t have any actual investment tied up in share croppers, and if one got sick or crippled, it was no loss to the landowner, etc.

        There’s no doubt in my mind that in some cases, slaves were better off, in terms of being sure to have food and a roof of some sort over their head, compared to share croppers, who were sometimes summarily kicked off the land they lived on, and other than the churches, there wasn’t much if anything in the way of welfare assistance back then.

        Anybody who wants some insight into the Reconstruction Era can find it reading Faulkner, one of the very best American writers, and one of the best and most important ever, in terms of understanding our history.

        One of my great grandparents was a share cropper, on a part time basis, back around the turn of the twentieth century, and my maternal grandfather, his kid, helped out in the fields and so never had an opportunity to go to school, which was quite common in this area that far back.

        But they did own their own house, such as it was, and some land, and were soon able to buy some more land and get jobs as well in the nearest town, which brought in enough cash to buy tools, a few luxury items, etc, and they were all free of the share cropping business by the end of WWI.

        The point of this rant is that it’s actually LIKELY , or at least possible, that a lot of the people caught up in this forced labor scheme have actually and truly volunteered to be part of it, judging it to be the best of their extremely limited choices.

        It’s damned rare to read ANYTHING these days in the popular press that hasn’t been slanted one way or the other to some extent to make points according to the politics of the authors, editors, and forum or publication owners involved.

        When I was learning the history of the Industrial Revolution, back in the Dark Ages, lol, I read some real tear jerkers about kids working in match factories who were dying slow horrible deaths from poisoning, etc.

        What the authors of these ( true ) stories virtually always failed to mention is that some or maybe even most of those kids would have likely died of starvation and exposure without that match factory job. So as bad as it was, it prolonged their miserable lives for a while.

        My guess is that this slave labor is as much or more about maintaining political control as it is saving some money by avoiding paying wages adequate to hire the work done.

        1. My dad was a sharecropper until he was about 43 years old. In 1944, or 45, I don’t remember the exact date, but he bought a 45-acre farm from his mother, and we were no longer sharecroppers. I was six or seven at the time.

          In those days the landowner got one-fourth of the crop if he furnished nothing. But he got one-third if he furnished the fertilizer and seed. Either way, the landowner had to furnish a dwelling for the sharecropper and his family. That was usually a two or three-room shack for a family that usually included from five to eight kids. In those days kids were free labor. Well, almost free because the share-cropper still had to feed and clothe them. That was usually beans and taters for food and rags for clothing.

          But, unlike a lot of my share-cropper friends, I never went hungry. I cannot remember ever going hungry. I, and the rest of my family, I had eight siblings, never went hungry.

          2. I have lost your email address:

            I wanted to send this:

            To Ron Patterson: Dear Ron, I believe I have conceived of a scheme that will end the ERoEI controversy. Currently, I need to collect 2017 data (consumption, imports, exports, production) for the US economy (in particular, number of employees and portion of GDP for each sector of the economy according to the BLS), the oil products industry, and every form of so-called renewable energy. I need to close some balance equations – especially for eMergy. I hope this long overdue note finds you happy and healthy. Tom

          3. Glad to see you post something, Ron, anytime, any subject!

            Nobody to my knowledge in my immediate extended family, meaning out to maybe second cousins or so, went hungry after about 1900 or so, because the family was tight knit, and everybody or almost everybody was farming, and if there was nothing else, there was plenty of corn bread, beans, potatoes, etc, plus as a rule some eggs and a chicken or pig for the pot most of the time.

            But I remember a number of stories told by my Mom about people living nearby who had very little or nothing to eat lots of times. The more prosperous families and the local churches donated enough food to keep body and soul together for those people. Even if you were farming, you could have bad luck and get almost nothing from your fields.

            I ate many a meal consisting of potatoes, beans, corn bread, and vegetables from the fields, canned or dried if out of season.The slaughtered hog didn’t always last out until hog killing time again, and sometimes the chickens just weren’t laying any eggs.

            1. My mother, who was born in 1920 had cousins in Kansas city. In the winter they went down to the train yard and threw rocks at the men guarding the coal trains. The guards threw coal back, which they collected and brought home to keep the family from freezing.

  2. Not sure if this interests anyone, but this company is selling a computer that features a chip with 2.6 trillion transistors on it. The whole thing including cooling fits into a box about the size of a hotel room fridge.

    https://cerebras.net/

    Oil and gas is one of their target markets. The machine can be used for modelling reservoirs.

    1. Cool —

      Would have loved one of these babies back in the days I used to do seismic interpretation(s). Lack of computing power was always the (major) constraint.

  3. Bitcoin USD (BTC-USD)
    CCC – CoinMarketCap. Currency in USD
    45,126.156-3,298.4414 (-6.8115%)

    60000+ is fading into the rear view mirror.
    We shall see—-

    1. No way will the Greens be the majority party. Germans truly love to virtue signal and doing that to a pollster is easy. They will not vote that way though. It’s just like the experiment I heard from Nate Hagens where if you ask people what kind of snack they want in a week the majority will respond that they want to have an apple. Ask the same people what they want now and they will choose chocolate. Chocolate in our case is the CDU/CSU.

    1. Image below is graph of new cases for the state of Uttar Pradesh. Down from 37,944 on the 24th of April to 10,505 on the 16th of May.

      1. This Indian statistic is not credible. Because this decrease in number of cas goes along a decrease of the number of tests carried out. The only credible statistic is the number of cremation per day. One week ago, the people were lacking of wood to cremate the deads. And thousands of bodies of dead people were found in the Gange, wood lacking for cremation and precisely in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indias-covid-crisis-pushes-up-cost-living-dying-2021-05-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/india/bodies-covid-19-victims-among-those-dumped-indias-ganges-govt-document-2021-05-15/

    2. Image below is graph of new cases for the state of Tamil Nadu. Up from 14,842 to 33,181 over the exact same period.

      Anybody have any clues as to what is going on here?

      1. Island boy, this is from Ground zero . All govt figures are underreported . Multiply by minimum 4 or maximum 10 . Since the last few days I think 4 days but could be a week there is hardly any testing . No testing kits , so now the narrative is that number of positive cases is down . No , it is not . The message has gone down to the bureaucrats ” suppress all negative data ” as it destroys the macho image of the current PM made with the help of the pliant media . Acute shortage of all medical supplies . In the hinterland a tablet of Paracetamol is for $ 0.30 cents in the black market . The country is in total collapse . Only the NGO’s are working ,the administration is ” missing in action ” . Uttar Pradesh is a disaster . So many dead that the crematoriums can’t handle it , bodies are thrown in the river . See my video above .

        2. While I appreciate you information from Ground Zero, you completely ignored the difference between the two graphs between the end of April and the present day. Are reporting standards from the north that different from the south or is there something else at play?

          1. Island boy , you are trying to fit a mathematical model( whatsoever that is ) with a political decision as already explained . The graphs are immaterial . All figures are conjured up to please the political masters . North , South, East or West is not important . It has nothing to do with vaccinations or anything else . I have posted two videos as evidence that the healthcare system is in total collapse . Max I can do is provide you more data viz doctors per thousand , beds per thousand , ICU facilities , ventilators etc to help you get to wherever you are going on this . If you want more videos on the failure of the system I can post . Plenty to back up what I posted .
            P.S : I am not ignoring the ” difference between the graphs” , I am rejecting them as outright as garbage . Nothing of worth .

            1. Alert , this is coming as a side effect to persons who have taken the jab . Serious enough to classify it as an epidemic . Anyone heard of this before . Serious .
              https://indianexpress.com/article/coronavirus/govt-urges-states-uts-to-make-black-fungus-notifiable-disease-under-epidemic-diseases-act-7323119/
              Complications galore , and it kills . It never rains it pours . Cyclone yesterday on the West Coast , now a cyclone on the East coast tomorrow . Devastating .
              https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/mucormycosis-kills-90-in-maharashtra-govt-seeks-injection-stock-from-centre-7322263/

            2. Hole in head- careful not to spread misinformation.
              You’ve got this wrong, and the information is damaging.

              Mucormycosis is a fungal disease the is almost entirely seen in immunocompromised people, including those with diabetes.
              Those cases in India are not being seen among the vaccinated.
              https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-57027829
              And read your link more carefully.
              It is being seen among those who got sick and took steroids.
              Steroid use makes you prone to mucormycosis and other ‘opportunistic’ infections.
              In India, steroid can more easily obtained than in places like the USA, where doctors are pretty cautious about the dose and duration of use.
              You are probably familiar with Neem , commonly used in India. It contains steroids, doses highly variable.

            3. Hicks , thanks for the clarification . In India every doctor prescribes a steroid when a patient will visit him with a Covid infection to avoid him going to the hospital where there are no beds , no oxygen and no ventilators . My impression was that it was the jab that triggered the ” black fungus ” but you are correct , it is the steroids that are the cause . Just for your info ,we Indians are experts are ” self medication ” . All my cousins are ” doctors ” . 🙂 . But jokes aside the pile of s^^^ just got a lot higher this week .

  8. “Wasn’t agriculture, rather than the adoption of fossil fuels, the biggest planning failure in human history? After all, if we hadn’t adopted grain crops, we wouldn’t have developed full-time division of labor and all the specialized knowledge and skills that were required to mine coal and drill for oil and gas, and to apply these fuels to the solution of practical problems. True enough. However, from a quantitative standpoint, it’s clear that fossil fuels have enabled much higher population growth during the past two centuries than occurred during the previous 10,000 years. The same could be said for per capita consumption rates and environmental damage. Agriculture may have set us humans on an unsustainable path, but fossil fuels broadened that path to a superhighway.”

    Any insight comrades?

    1. When did success become failure and failure become success ?

      Who’s interested in returning to human quality of life 200 or 10,000 years ago ?

      One child only, we aren’t hunters and gatherers anymore. Well, maybe we are but it’s not for squirrels and nuts.

    2. I believe whether it was the wrong path to take, both agriculture or fossil fuels, it would have happened with any species who adopted a consciousness/intelligence through its evolutionary path.

      Hindsight is always 20/20. The whole premise of agriculture was to make a harsh life somewhat easier. And it was the right path because most of the earth today is agricultural not hunter and gatherers. So you can conclude it was practical in its nature because it worked.

      Extrapolate this point, any species wants to make life easier. The evolution of the brain actually headed us in that direction through agriculture to civilisation and industrial civilisation to technological civilisation.

      As with this universe and its laws. There is always a price to pay. Seldom you get free meals in this universe. How we have paid the price is through radical destruction of the environment, weaker gene pool, dependence on the system and overall broad complexity etc.

      It’s in our nature not want to downgrade. Like HB says no one really wants to go back to the living standards of 200 let alone 10,000 years ago really. If they say they do, they have no idea how hard it was to live in those times.

      One of the pitfalls of being at the top or near the top, is that there is little wiggle room to go a bit more, but a lot more room to drop. And if civilisation does collapse at one point or another, adapting to the downgrade will be incredibly difficult.

      1. Well said.
        however:
        “During the transition to agriculture of the Neolithic and Late Neolithic periods, the longevity for both men and women decreased significantly to 33.1 years for men and 29.2 years for women. More strikingly, the measures of health decrease dramatically. Male height drops from nearly five foot ten in the Paleolithic to approximately five-three in the Late Neolithic, and the pelvic index drops by 22%. People were not only dying younger, they were dying sicker. Similar patterns were seen in the Americas during the transition period. Overall, the data shows that the transition to an agricultural lifestyle made people less healthy.”
        But:
        “Infant mortality is over 30 times greater among hunter-gatherers, and early child mortality is over 100 times greater than encountered in the United States. Even late childhood mortality is about 80 times greater among hunter-gatherers. Not until the late teens does the relationship flatten, with over a tenfold difference in mortality. This difference is only fivefold by age 50, fourfold by age 60, and threefold by age 70.” (Gurven & Kaplan, 2007)

        1. Hightrekker,

          Interesting read.

          Usually environmental pressures implies succumbing to harshest of natural selection. So offspring that would survive to the teens would in some instances have a longer and healthier life, maybe upwards of 60 years like you quote.

          I’ve read a scientific paper a while ago regarding the tooth records of hunter and gatherers, agricultural and industrial civilisation humans.

          Hunter and gatherers had no instances of tooth decay or gum disease. Tooth decay largely comes from a bacteria that metabolises sugar (epidemic in industrial civilisation) likewise gum disease bacteria comes from a bacteria that metabolises complex carbohydrates (agricultural). In saying that they probably still had tooth infections which would have been horrible. And they would have had to endure much pain if not a horrible death.

          I think people who lived (and survived) in the hunter and gatherer days where actually healthier since they lived within the scope of their biological programming. But they where built for that harshness so they where a lot tougher which implies they had a much stronger gene pool.

          Impossible to go back to that i think for the majority of us. Including myself. If i was thrown into the wild to survive i would last maximum a week i think.

          1. Agriculturists need much less land per capita, or put another way, on any piece of land suitable for agriculture, there are likely more agriculturists than hunter gatherers.

            It wasn’t really a decision, it’s just that if certain groups engage in agriculture they end up outnumbering people who don’t. In fact only about half of the habitable land is used for agriculture (about a third of all land) but only a tiny portion of the population lives from hunting. 37% of the planet’s habitable land is forested but it supports very few hunter-gatherers.

            https://ourworldindata.org/land-use

            The NRA used to claim Americans need guns to feed their families, but that was just absurdist political theater. There isn’t enough game out there to matter any more.

            And of course a farmer will fight to the death to defend a piece of land too small to support a hunter gatherer. It’s never worth the hunter gatherer’s effort to oppose a single farm.

            Something similar happens if bikes get a foothold in a city. For example, in Amsterdam, 2/3 of the trips inside the city are made by bike, even though 70% of the road space is reserved for cars. It’s a bike city.

            The movement got started for safety. Separate bike lanes were created because mixing bikes and cars is dangerous. Seemed reasonable to most people. Once the process began, the switch was almost inevitable, because you can fit so many more bikes than cars onto the road. Slimming down a oversized road doesn’t really matter to drivers, but is huge for cyclists and pedestrians.

            1. “There isn’t enough game out there to matter any more.”

              Maybe if (when) things get tough, cattle will become game, for awhile. Where I live cattle outnumber people so we have a lot of protein wandering around. 😉

    3. “Wasn’t agriculture, rather than the adoption of fossil fuels, the biggest planning failure in human history? ”

      The development of agriculture wasn’t a plan, or deliberate. There was no committee. It happened gradually over thousand of years, and arose spontaneously and distinctly in at least 4 different areas of the globe.
      Likewise, species that preceded Homo sapien and began to regularly kill animals to eat, and developed the use of fire, and the use tools, were not doing so in a planned manner.
      These things all arose through experimentation. Stop-start, failure, retry 38 generations later. Change in climate, change in tribal dominance, change in ability to grasp a ‘handle’.
      And the things that gave an advantage gained traction. (note- the tribe advocating for clay weapons did go extinct)
      More like stumbling upon new methods and materials, rather than a plan.
      Gunpowder to use as a weapon- I think that was a plan.
      Religion as tool to manipulate people- I think that was a plan.
      Becoming utterly dependent on a massive input of energy- Not a plan.
      Becoming grossly overpopulated- Not a plan.
      Stumbling forward one year at a time. And even today when we can see more clearly than ever where we have come from and what the road ahead vaguely looks like, we cannot make or live by a plan to deal with overpopulation or environmental destruction.
      Since we generally don’t plan or have much discipline, the decline from peak overshoot will happen in some very brisks spurts.
      I hope you are not there.

      “Agriculture may have set us humans on an unsustainable path, but fossil fuels broadened that path to a superhighway.” Absolutely.

    4. “Wasn’t agriculture, rather than the adoption of fossil fuels, the biggest planning failure in human history?

      People who write that sort of stuff are either careless in choosing their words, or utterly ignorant of the way evolution really works. There isn’t any planning involved at all.

      Mother Nature tries random variations by the billions, and whichever of those billions WORK, are preserved, modified by further variations, again preserved, etc…… and this process extends to behaviors as well as physical traits.

      Planning is something that happens only after the rise of a high level of intelligence. I’m not saying hunter gatherers were stupid, not at all.

      I’m simply saying they did whatever they could when they could to improve their own odds of survival, and the one and biggest variation of behavior they tried was agriculture, in terms of the long term consequences.

      Any planning they could possibly have done was at the individual or local group or tribal level, at the time of the rise of agriculture, and there’s no way they could have even imagined the long term consequences of looking after a primitive garden, etc.

        1. Mike —
          That’s pretty interesting. Clothes make you pretty as well as protecting your skin, which is a big incentive to innovate.

          My nephew studied grain consumption in the Andes, and he says they had corn there for 800 years for making beer before they bothered to to eat much of it.

          And clothes have been around for a long time. Genetic studies show that human body lice split off from head lice 70,000 years ago (more or less). Body lice are really clothes lice, so people must have been wearing something.

    5. There is the theory that it was an unstable climate that prevented the development of civilization before about 10 – 15 thousand years ago. IOW civilization would have happened whenever the climate became stable enough to allow the development of agriculture, regardless of the social or demographic stage of the human population.

  10. Hot off the press.

    PERMAFROST CARBON FEEDBACKS THREATEN GLOBAL CLIMATE GOALS

    “Over the past decade, rapid Arctic warming has resulted in record-breaking Siberian heatwaves, extreme northern wildfires that release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and an acceleration of permafrost thaw. Arctic permafrost, which has been accumulating and storing carbon for thousands of years, contains approximately twice the amount of carbon that is currently in the Earth’s atmosphere, and is releasing that carbon into the atmosphere as it thaws. Those emissions exacerbate warming, which triggers more thaw, potentially leading to an exponential increase in emissions and warming in the coming years. Current carbon budgets fail to account for these carbon emissions from permafrost and the dangerous climate feedback loops they will set off.”

    https://phys.org/news/2021-05-permafrost-carbon-feedbacks-threaten-global.html

    1. Meanwhile,

      PART OF THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET MAY BE CLOSE TO A TIPPING POINT

      From their analysis, the authors conclude part of the Greenland ice sheet is losing stability, consistent with the idea it is very close to tipping into a state of accelerated melting, regardless of whether the Arctic warming trend is halted in the coming decades. “We might be seeing the beginning of a large-scale destabilization, but at the moment, we cannot tell, unfortunately. So far, the signals we see are only regional, but that might simply be due to the scarcity of accurate and long-term data for other parts of the ice sheet.”

      https://phys.org/news/2021-05-greenland-ice-sheet.html

      1. 1) Even if parts of Greenland are destabilized, it will take hundreds of years to melt. And, given the current situation on oil markets, the scenario RCP 8.5 is almost impossible. 2) If you are worried about the possibility of melting of Greenland, I may suggest you the visit of this NSIDC site : https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/.

  11. I’m curious what people think of this comment on Quora:

    Q. How to you completely stop the “illegal immigration” crisis in the United States.
    A. Have states enforce their own minimum wage laws.
    Like we do in Canada.
    It is possible to work illegally in Canada, but not for long. The immigration, employments standards and labour law people are constantly poking around places that tend to hire illegal immigrants.
    For example, many Asians start restaurants and pay for a relative to come over on a tourist visa. That starts the spidey sense of the immigration department tingling, and they pass the information over to employment standards. They do a snap inspection and find that the owner has several employees on staff who don’t have a paper history. The provincial authorities swoop in on payroll tax offences and the feds swoop in on income tax and pension plan withholding offences. Owner gets charged with all of that and the government gets judgment for the missing money.
    Canada has agriculture too. It also has a guest worker’s program. If you need fruit picked or vegetables harvested, you make an application for workers and brokers work with you to get the necessary workers from Jamaica or wherever. The workers get provincial health benefits during their work period and pay taxes like everyone else.
    You can’t just sneak into Canada and work as domestic (no need, if you need a domestic, you go through an agency and get someone from the Philippines through an agency who gets permanent residence status, so they can change jobs) or a construction worker (everyone you work with would check you out, like the Ministry of Labour) or a gardener (most landscape companies are ‘on the books’). No-one will hire you if you just show up. However, if you have skills you can get in.
    In addition, Canada isn’t just about deportation. The people who systemically hire illegals know they won’t be let off the hook so easy. They get punished too.

    1. Hi Nick. It would be good to have a rational and relatively transparent system like they do in Canada.
      Here that would require a major change in mindset.
      The government, many businesses, and most consumers benefit greatly from having illegal immigrants work under poor conditions and pay in the USA. They might say they oppose illegal immigration, but they do not favor the institution simply enforcement methods (at the site of work) that would make the issue a much smaller one.
      Most would prefer to keep the cheap labor.
      I’d also point out that the scenario in Canada is different , since they do not share a land border with 181 million Central Americans.

      1. I agree – cheap labor is the point of the US system. Enforcement is aimed at the undocumented employee rather than the employer, and that makes the employee powerless to ask for a legal or livable wage. And cheap labor from undocumented workers drives down wages for citizens.

        The current system is precisely aimed at hurting US employees by keeping their wages low.

        1. “The current system is precisely aimed at hurting US employees by keeping their wages low.”

          I see it slightly differently- the current system is aimed at keeping labor costs low for business, and secondarily benefiting all consumers. The affect on domestic employee wages is a consequence given little regard.

          1. We’re in agreement: the current system is aimed at keeping employee wages low for business, and the impact on the employee’s quality of life is not a priority.

            One thought: it’s not intended to benefit consumers, it’s intended to benefit business owners. And the ultimate impact is to increase income inequality. This harms most consumers by reducing their income; and harms everyone because income inequality causes the economy to underperform: high income consumers save too much and consume too little, so aggregate demand is too low and the economy stagnates.

    2. Nick G
      I think it’s pretty clear that the problem of illegal immigrants on America is mostly a problem of a poorly regulated labor market. The government should be cracking down on employers underpaying workers. Hiring illegal immigrants is a popular way to exploit workers, because illegals have no legal protection from unfair or inhumane labor practices. If people who exploited vulnerable people went to jail, as they should, illegal immigration would go away.

  12. This is NOT an anti-vax comment. It is an observation that requires explanation. The graphic below is a comparison of new case counts for COVID-19 in Bangladesh and the vaccination rollout. It seems unlikely to me that the 90% decline in new case counts between April 7 and May 17 (7,626 to 698) can be attributed to the fact that the fully vaccinated portion of the population rose from 0 to 2.2 percent over the same period.

    There is another possibility, the discussion of which would appear to be taboo. This sudden and dramatic decline in new case counts has happened elsewhere and in many cases cannot be attributed to lock downs or vaccinations. One can look at data for Mexico, Panama, Portugal, Nigeria, South Africa Zimbabwe, Bulgaria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Lebanon for other instances of this phenomenon. In every case there is a common thread but, I would like to hear what others think this phenomenon can be attributed to before I say what the common thread is.

    1. Well, to quote: “Bangladesh, a poverty-stricken South Asian country, is losing its battle against the pandemic, but mainly because of its incompetent healthcare system. The casualties are escalating and public sufferings are becoming unimaginable… This article identifies three responsible issues for the country’s deteriorating health care: 1) poor governance and increased corruption, 2) inadequate healthcare facilities, and 3) weak public health communication.”

      So, given this background, I’d guess any Covid-19 graphs coming from Bangladesh have about as much relationship to reality as the Tooth Fairy does to dental care. Maybe if you listened to HOLE IN HEAD you MIGHT adjust your thinking to reflect reality rather than, as it would appear, wishful thinking.

      BTW Per the attached paper, the coronavirus testing rate in Bangladesh (0.34%) is the second lowest in South Asia only after Afghanistan.

      HEALTHCARE CRISIS IN BANGLADESH DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7543838/

      1. I was half kind of expecting this response which is why I didn’t even mention Haiti, which appears not to have experienced this pandemic. I assume that as a failed state it would not count but, as far as I am aware there is no new crisis in Haiti. The point is that seven out the other eleven countries are $#!ϯ#0|Ɛ countries with corrupt governments, incompetent or corrupt bureaucrats and health care systems that cant count anything right, much less provide anything resembling decent health care. I guess that leaves with four of the poorest European (not $#!ϯ#0|Ɛ) countries!

        What about Portugal, Bulgaria, Slovakia and the Czech Republic? What accounts for the sudden decline in new cases in these countries? Incompetence and corruption again? I must say I find this general attitude very condescending but, I’ve got my popcorn ready to watch this pandemic as it unfolds. Let’s see what happens over the next few weeks/months.

        1. Islandboy, why don’t you give us a “on-the-ground” observer report on the corona-virus situation in Jamaica? Meanwhile, here’s a blurb about Australia, a country about which you seem determined to trumpet the great progress being made installing solar energy farms and other great “green actions”:

          “Australia is the worst-performing country on climate change policy, according to a new international ranking of 57 countries. The report also criticizes the Morrison government for being a “regressive force” internationally. Further, Australia scored the lowest possible rating of 0.0, compared with the highest-scoring country, Portugal, which was ranked best for its climate policy at 97.8%. The report praised Portugal for its ambitious target of net-zero emissions by 2050 and a 55% emissions reduction by 2030.”

          https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/11/australia-ranked-worst-of-57-countries-on-climate-change-policy

    2. “Bangladesh saw case numbers rising from early March, and brought in a national lockdown on 5 April. This has now been extended to 16 May.”

      The only thing that has helped any country (before high percent vaccination) avoid new infection is the institution of simple measures taken to impede transmission of virus-
      Mask wearing, distance between people, restricting travel, restricting access to public indoor spaces, and contract tracing when practiced effectively/thoroughly.
      A national lock down if adhered to is the way to make a countries graph look like the Bangladesh example.
      Its simple. Its why influenza prevalence this past winter was a non-event.

      Bangladesh-
      ” get the last trains, buses and ferries out of Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, before a nationwide transport shutdown to halt the spread of coronavirus takes hold.”
      “The country … virtually cut off with all international flights halted and domestic transport curtailed.”
      “Police also stopped people boarding trucks that were taking some out of the city, fearing the cramped vehicles would easily allow the virus to spread.”
      “Bangladesh is enforcing a lockdown , shutting shopping malls and transportation,”

      As an aside- in the USA the pandemic could be effectively over by July 4th if people got vaccinated. But many, especially the trump maga Q tribe are refraining from the opportunity to get the vaccine.
      They will get immunity the other way, and more slowly.
      New variants could change the equation, of course.

  13. I read that that on average 500,000 pounds of earth must be mined to produce one EV battery.

    This is a Manhattan Institute stat.

    Is this correct? If not, what is an accurate amount?

    What led to me this was some IEA data as to how much mining will be required for the energy transition.

    1. I recommend: Blip: Humanity’s 300 year self-terminating experiment with industrialism. Even without peak oil, climate change or ecocide we’re finished by 2050 because we don’t have enough of all the other stuff. The attempted transition while maintaining BAU will just make things happen faster, and as infrastructure degeneration accelerates efficiencies will fall off bringing things further forward still.

      2. What? You wouldn’t suggest there won’t be enough battery metals to power the 2 billion plus electric cars and massive transport trucks expected to be on the world’s roads in a few years. Don’t you know we can always scrape and vacuum manganese nodules off the ocean floor, nodules which contain the four essential battery metals: cobalt, nickel, copper, and manganese. Use your imagination man. Bugger all the big fish, there aren’t many of them left anyway. 😉

        1. This is the kind of copy pasta right wing think tanks come up with in a desperate last gasp attempt to make people afraid of transitioning away from fossil fuels.

          1. When people discuss replacements for fossil fuel, Doug presents arguments that nothing can be done, or that we should discuss other things (such as helping wildlife).

            He seems very uncomfortable with replacing fossil fuels.

            2. I’m of the impression that Doug, like many who consider the environmental impact of civilisation, doesn’t believe BAU but with a coat of green paint will suffice. Moving away from fossil fuels isn’t only prudent, it’s mandatory. But it’s also not even the full picture, since the planet cannot sustain our growth even if we became net zero carbon emitters overnight.

              There simply is no sustainable way the system can continue, but continue it must with the present paradigm, hence the total lack of any real movement in addressing climate change in over thirty years of dedicated international talks on the matter. And now, Biden and Johnson’s aspirations for renewable nirvana by 2030 are comically out of line with what will actually be feasible within the confines of the system.

              Regardless, a massive disconnect is going to happen. People are not going to be happy one way or another, be it sticking with ever depleting and less energy intense fossil fuels, or switching wholesale to renewables. It’s a brave new world on either path.

            3. Kleiber,

              The two paths are not equivalent. I really don’t understand the idea that BAU is no better or worse than an aggressive move away from fossil fuels.

              Whether people realize it or not, that idea has the effect of supporting BAU: it suggests that there’s no reason to make any change at all.

              There’s a similar thing in politics: someone who says US Republicans and Democrats are no different is (whether or not they realize it) defending the Republicans, who are not defensible.

    2. I think the mining issue is a big one, but it won’t change the course of action.
      The ‘world’ generally is now aware that the growth phase of fossil fuel is over and that depletion is now the dominant theme. And that carbon emissions with climate destabilization is indeed an inconvenient truth associated with burning the fossilized carbon.
      And thus the ‘world’ will begin the big push to replace fossil fuel with other forms of energy, and ICE vehicles with electric ones.
      And it will take a lot of copper, lithium, zinc, etc.
      Its not an option we get to make a choice on. The world isn’t about to just voluntarily fold up shop because peak oil has been ‘achieved’.
      The collective purchasing power of humanity will be voting for transportation (and heating and cooling) mechanisms.
      And the only viable alternative mechanisms possible guarantees an uptick in mining.
      There is no free lunch. Anything humans do on a big scale [over a 100 people] is destructive to the ecosystem. And we are rushing on to 8 Billion people this very day.
      So even if we acknowledge that the industrial and energy intensive pathway of humanity is destructive or unsustainable, that realization does not have a chance of changing the trajectory much. It seems to me.

        1. Mining generally relates to ores and minerals, extraction traditionally applies to the collection of gas and oil. Coal mining is the extracting of coal from the ground. Some people say you draw water from a well (or even “fetching water” — if you use a bucket 😉 . Quarrying typically involves obtaining stone or other materials from a pit. (i.e., a limestone quarry). BTW Here in Canada, the phrases open-pit mining and strip mining are usually applied to exploitation of oil shales (more accurately, Tar Sands). It’s just resource industry nomenclature.

          Lithium is almost a special case. Mostly it is extracted from a mineral-rich brine (roughly ten metres beneath the briny lakes of high-altitude salt flats). The process begins by drilling down through the crust and then pumping the brine up to the surface into evaporation pools. The product is lithium carbonate, of course, and most of us call the process mining.

          The vast majority of cobalt is a byproduct of copper ores so I suppose you would have to say it comes from refining copper ores, most of which come from the Central African Copperbelt.

          What is the point of your question?

          1. Hi Doug.
            Was enjoying your comment in a studious way… and then I got to the last line. : )

            I suspect Mr. Norris’ question is rhetorical, suggesting that all resource extraction is damaging to the environment.

            1. Or perhaps he’s suggesting that the fact that EVs are not made out of unicorn fur is not an argument against them.

              Fossil fuels cause extraordinary damage to the environment, including extraction but primarily because of climate change. The idea that EVs cause damage that is in any comparable is highly unrealistic.

    3. Manhattan Institute is funded by Koch Industries, and lies all the time. Did they do a breakdown? For example, a lot of the weight of an EV battery is structural, which is cheap recycled steel or aluminum. There’s the housing tray, the housing cover, the crash structure, the lower protection cover, the battery frame and the cooling system. Did they count that as mined?

      Oddly, they don’t seem very worried about the seven billion tons of coal that gets mined every year. I wonder if that has to do with Koch’s coal mining interests.

      Even based on their almost certainly inflated number, 7 billion tons would be enough to produce 28 million EV batteries. And or course that 7 billion tons is just the coal not whatever it’s buried in.

      In addition, coal can’t be recycled once it’s burned. It’s a chemical compound, and useless at best when the chemical energy has been released. The atoms in a battery don’t go away, and can enter the circular economy.

      And battery weight keeps falling, thanks to better designs and chemistry. Also EV manufacturers are working on integrating the structural weight into the car design, which would bring huge savings. And if the battery weighs less, you need less energy to push the vehicle, so weight is spiraling down.

      Battery size is a serious constraint to EV design, so manufacturers are serious about increasing efficiency. This is much different to the situation in the combustion engine business, where fuel efficiency has to be mandated.

      1. I think anyone arguing against EVs instead of ICEs is likely in the pocket of an interest invested in keeping those ICE fleets going. There are way too many benefits to the consumer for EVs. heavy electric vehicles for haulage is another matter, but the personal electric car was more or less solved in 1900. We’ve just made them cooler now.

        That said, EVs are only better than ICEs in the same way low tar cigarettes are better than unfiltered cancer sticks. There is nothing environmentally good about replacing billions of vehicles using petroleum with billions of fossil fuel produced, but renewable powered conveyances.

      2. No breakdown. I’m not arguing for anything. I am aware MI is politically motivated.

        I just posted that asking if anyone had any better/more reliable data.

        Just asking questions here because we have long-lived, low decline stripper oil wells that we have mostly owned for over 40 years.

        There are so many educated guesses for what the future holds, just trying to take in what info I can.

        We have decided for now to just keep building our plugging fund, as banks won’t hardly finance new buyers of oil wells.

        1. SS,

          I don’t have time to research that in depth for the latest info, but I’m confident that the answer is that the mining required to provide battery materials won’t be a fundamental limit. OTOH, lithium production (and other materials) may need a significant investment and entail significant time lags, so that could slow down EVs somewhat.

          The more important barriers are social/political and psychological, and those are mighty unpredictable.

          One peculiar barrier is the dealer model. Car dealers make the majority of their money on maintenance and repair, and EVs require roughly 50% as much of that. So, dealers hate EVs and disencentivize salespeople from selling them and steer customers away from buying them.

          That may be the primary reason Tesla still has the lead in EVs!

        2. Shallow —
          Here’s some information about the Tesla Model X I found:

          The 85 kWh battery pack weighs 1,200 lb (540 kg) and contains 7,104 lithium-ion battery cells in 16 modules wired in series.

          The Model S/X 18650 Cell weighs 45 grams. So the cells together weigh 316 kg, of 58% of the total weight. The rest is other stuff like steel, copper, plastic etc. This is probably the part that will shrink the most in the next few years.

          Musk says lithium makes up about 2% of the total weight of the battery pack. That would be about 11 kg.

          A big part of the battery innards is a plastic foil separating the anode and cathode, which are wrapped around each other.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxS7XeIh_i4&t=227s

          The anode and cathode are graphite and copper respectively, with some other metals mixed into the cathode, notably cobalt or nickel, which are by-products of mining iron and copper.

          The metal case around the cell is aluminum, which is usually recycled these days.

          I think it would be pretty hard to put a number on the exact amount of mining needed.

          1. ”A big part of the battery innards is a plastic foil separating the anode and cathode, which are wrapped around each other. ”
            Correct Alim , but never heard of a lady who was a little bit pregnant or a prostitute who was a virgin . When you find them let me know and we will continue the discussion . 🙂

  14. ESA is preparing to launch a space mission dedicated to monitoring solar activity in order to have a warning on the appearance of a coronal mass ejection, like the CME of 2012, which could disrupt everything operating with the electricity (therefore, everything). Initially, they wanted to give it the name “Mission Lagrange” but they changed their minds and decided to organize a contest where people can propose a name. Personally, I proposed the ”Carrington event ” because the Carrington event is a major geomagnetic storm that occurred in 1859 during which the Northern Lights were seen all the way to Venezuela, telegraph networks were disturbed and people in the northern United States were able to read at night thanks to the intensity of light displayed by the Northern Lights. To make things a bit clearer, a 2013 study assessed the damage to the U.S. economy if the 2012 CME had encountered Earth: something between $ 600 billion and $ 2.6 trillion.
    https://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/The_no_name_space_weather_mission

    1. ”Carrington event ” because the Carrington event is a major geomagnetic storm that occurred in 1859 during which the Northern Lights were seen all the way to Venezuela,…

      Not to be a nit-picker but I think those would have been called “Southern Lights” coming from the antarctic. 😉

      1. In fact, the people of South Australia also saw the Southern Lights like the people of the northern hemisphere with the Northern Lights. Here you have in the second part of the video a modeling of the effects of a CME comparable to that of the Carrington event on the magnetosphere of the Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOnz7IztubE

  15. Could more than 100 retired generals and admirals really be that stupid? Apparently yes!

    More Than 100 Retired Military Brass Sign Letter By ‘Jack Meehoff

    A group of more than 100 retired generals and admirals who have accused President Joe Biden of being a communist have been pranked by a faux flag officer going by the nom de guerre “Rear Adm. Jack Meehoff.”

    If you don’t get the joke, just say the name “Jack Meehoff” aloud. That’s right. You understand now.

    Earlier this month, the group Flag Officers 4 America posted an open letter that repeated lies spread by former President Donald Trump and the elected leaders who support his claims that the FBI and Supreme Court ignored “election irregularities” in 2020.

    No concrete evidence has emerged suggesting the 2020 election was stolen. Trump’s former Attorney General William Barr said in December there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud and Chris Krebs, Trump’s director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, called the 2020 presidential election “the most secure in U.S. history.”

    1. We have the same problem with retired generals in France. They sang the risk of civil war because of so-called uncontrolled immigration in an opinion piece in a weekly magazine, a theme sang by extreme-right extremists since the end of Algeria war in 1962. Just sixty years of endless repetition. And the worst part is that I have read of young and uneducated people who take this seriously.

      1. I did my national service for a few years and I observed that most talented folks got out and moved on to other things after some time. A ‘lifer’ in the officers ranks is assumed by many to be some great leader, or whatever, but they’re more likely just a person with no outside the service options. Life long military service is a catch-all for misfits and fuck-ups. Assuming ‘retired senior officers’ are not idiots is a bold move.

  16. Maybe not enough people are focusing on wood as a resource for energy and maybe materials? After all historically in Northern France wood was the limiting factor for more population north of Paris in the middle ages 1300-1700? (Vaclav Smil, I like to read his books). The Roman empire extracted Spain dry of woods due to mining of silver.

    Wood is not as important now as it was before. However, where I come from (Norway), the biomass of woods have increased 3-fold since after WW2 because of cheap electricity/oil being the better choice. The same has happened a lot of places. You could get electricity, heat (through water in cables) , biofuels and materials from wood resources. Would it be a good idea to use surplus electricity to cut more wood and then transport it through electric based rail (or rivers like the old days) to convert it to the various form of uses?

    1. If all I had for energy was wood or coal, the choice wouldn’t be easy. The smoke from both are really bad for your lungs, and the air in general.
      At least with coal, I would still have a forest, with some good watershed and wildlife habitat.
      [I am assuming that the coal is from underground rather than strip mined]

      If fossil fuels were all gone, and not enough solar wind hydro nuclear was available, then the worlds forests would be stripped down to the ground in a few decades.

      1. Yes, sure. Wood resources are forgotten as for now , due to the dense hydrocarbons underground. It helps to cut trees inbetween, to not destroy the forest. It is not important today; it is an order of magnitude not sufficient. Bottom line is that the energy situation for each country is different, and that energy security is important.

      2. Hickory,

        While i would tend to agree, if the impending lack of energy scenario was to actually pass. The social unrest and/or wars that might ensue would probably shadow the burning of trees.

        It is really hard for me to even imagine such a scenario actually playing out but who the hell knows.

        1. Imagine a place like India- soon to be the worlds largest county. If imported fossil fuels were no longer available, the forests wouldn’t last long. Already cattle dung is widely used to cook with. Before widespread use of coal, most of the forests in Europe and USA were stripped bare, in many places over and over. And then there was only 1 billion people, and no chain saws.

          The history of Copper production in bronze age Cyprus is an interesting story -“The increase in metallurgical activity put a great burden on the island’s woods. Some 120 pine trees were required to prepare the 6 tons of charcoal needed to produce one copper ingot shaped roughly like a dried ox hide and weighing between 45 and 65 pounds. One ingot, therefore, deforested almost four acres.”
          https://psmag.com/environment/peak-wood-and-the-bronze-age-14363

          1. History is interesting. UK starting to exploit coal after burning down too much forest for charcoal in the late 1600’s for example.

            1. You had similar things in Germany and Spain around that time. Pretty much all of Europe ran into wood shortages, among other things, during a time of massive ramping up of the material’s use. One reason for the UK going for brick housing was down to this lack of wood.

      3. Quite a while back, probably fifteen or twenty years, a professional forester here in the USA calculated that our forests would be totally used up within five years without fossil fuels.
        But that wouldn’t happen, in reality, for the same reason that the mountains where I live were ninety five percent wooded when the landscape was stripped of trees near cities like NY in the nineteenth century. That last five percent consisted of hillside land cleared for crops and pasture.

        It would be impossible to transport wood in such quantities so far from where it is to where the people are without fossil fuels, unless maybe there would be time enough to build railroads and wood fired trains reaching into every corner of the boonies.

        1. Surely the least accessible forests would be cut last. which roughly correlates to the forests growing on the most marginal soils (steep or rocky). The forests on better soils are already mostly in cropland or grazing, or replaced by cities and suburbs
          Big difference between now and the 19th century is demand (if energy ran short)-
          Population
          1860 USA 31 million
          2020 USA 331 million

    1. BTC-USD
      37,118.02
      -3,772.53(-9.23%)

      This was over 60000 a short while ago.
      Reality creeping in?

      1. Very high volatility is normal for Bitcoin. One of the many reasons it’s unsuited to be a real currency.

            1. Whatever meme Elon Musk is handing out on the day.

              Honestly, crypto is a shitshow. I would never invest or trade it given the volume and volatility issues. Any trading I do is purely on FX or indices which are volatile enough these days.

  18. Nick, for an argument that it cannot be done, go to the link below. It’s a very long article. I just quote a bit of it below:

    Why Green Energy Can Never Replace Fossil Fuels

    We don’t have a Planet B. And they don’t really have a Plan B. They just assume and expect that this monumental transformation will simply happen.

    Wind, solar, battery and biofuel technologies represent the natural evolution toward previously unimaginable energy sources – and they will become more efficient over time. Trust us, they say.

    Ask them for details, and their responses range from evasive to delusional, disingenuous – and outrage that you would dare ask. The truth is, they don’t have a clue.

    They’ve never really thought about it. It’s never occurred to them that these technologies require raw materials that have to be dug out of the ground, which means mining, which they vigorously oppose (except by dictators in faraway countries).

    SNIP

    Using wind power to replace the 3.9 billion megawatt-hours that Americans consumed in 2018, coal and gas-fired backup power plants, natural gas for home heating, coal and gas for factories, and gasoline for vehicles – while generating enough extra electricity every windy day to charge batteries for just seven straight windless days – would require some 14 million 1.8-MW wind turbines.

    Those turbines would sprawl across three-fourths of the Lower 48 US states – and require 15 billion tons of steel, concrete and other raw materials. They would wipe out eagles, hawks, bats and other species.

    Go offshore instead, and we’d need a couple million truly monstrous 10-MW turbines, standing in water 20-100 feet deep or on huge platforms in deeper water, up and down our Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

    Not as many of the beasts, but each one a lot bigger – requiring vastly more materials per turbine.

    A Category 4 hurricane going up the Atlantic seaboard would wipe out a lot of them – leaving much of the country without power for months or years, until wrecks got removed and new turbines installed.

    Using solar to generate just the 3.9 billion MWh would require completely blanketing an area the size of New Jersey with sunbeam-tracking Nellis Air Force Base panels – if the Sun were shining at high-noon summertime Arizona intensity 24/7/365. (That doesn’t include the extra power demands listed for wind.)

    There is a lot more to this article. Every point needs to be refuted by those who believe in the renewable pie-in-the-sky scenario. Don’t get me wrong. I love the idea of an all-renewable world. But using logic and just plain common sense, I know it just ain’t gonna happen.

    1. Ron,

      I don’t agree that this article is realistic. I suspect that I’ve discussed everything in it at one time or another, but I don’t have the time right now to discuss these points one by one. I don’t think it would be productive to try to do so at this point. That’s part of what I was trying to say in my earlier comment- I believe it distracts us from the following question which is much more important.

      Keep in mind that it’s up to you what “possible” means. But, based for the moment on whatever you think is possible:

      Do you agree that we should transition from fossil fuels, as quickly as possible and as thoroughly as possible?

      1. Of course, we should. Or more correctly, we should try. But my point is, it is an impossible dream. It will never happen. But every little bit helps. Every EV, every windmill and every solar panel helps just a little bit. But a total transition is nothing more than a pipe dream. We will never see an electrical air fleet. And a fleet of heavy transport trucks running on batteries? From Florida to Washington? From Maine to California? Yeah, right.

        1. Ron,

          I agree we are unlikely to have electrically powered aircraft, we could use synthetic fuel produced with wind, solar, and hydro power, eventually.
          In place of heavy long haul trucks, electrified rail could certainly be built. You are sure this is all impossible, I simply disagree. It will not happen in 20 years, in 50 many things are possible, just as many things I thought were impossible 50 years ago are today a reality. I cannot predict the future any better today than I could 50 years ago, anyone who believes they can is simply wrong.

          For those that imagine that solar, wind etc must be worse for the environment than fossil fuel consider publication below

          https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycle-assessment.html

          1. From article linked above a chart for lifecycle carbon emissions from various power sources. A click on chart will make it larger.

          2. It will not happen in 20 years, in 50 many things are possible,…

            Dennis, what is possible and what is probable are totally different things. At the rate the current collapse is going, in fifty years, we will very likely be using horses for transportation. Well, that is if we haven’t eaten them all.

            1. Not sure whether “jumbo jets” will go electric, but at this point I think they will.

              An electric jet? Do you have a frigging clue as to how jets operate? Do you have any idea what pushes a jet-powered plane? They operate by thrust. A plane cannot create thrust without burning fuel to thrust the spent fuel, and air, backward.

              Of course, you could just spin a propeller, but that would not be a jet. A batteried powered jet is impossible.
              From your link:

              The lithium-ion batteries used on the original flight brought the ePlane to its gross weight, and only had a 15-minute endurance with a 25-minute reserve.

              Wow! Fifteen minutes.

            2. Not sure I’d call it an unstoppable juggernaut!

              As far as I am aware, there is only one electric aircraft that you can go out and buy to do anything really useful and that is the Pipistrel Alpha Electro, a two seat flight trainer that can fly for about an hour with a half hour reserve. It is claimed that it can cut the cost of training flights by 70%. That is going to be very hard to beat for training flights less than a hour long!

              Another company Bye Aerospace also has a two seat flight trainer undergoing FAA certification and awaiting final battery development. They are collaborating with a company called OXIS Energy that is working on Lithium sulfur battery technology. So while the air frame has done successful test flights under electric power, there appear to be some issues with the development of the battery pack. The claim is that this aircraft will be able to fly for three hours with a half hour reserve. The company has plans to develop 4 and 8 seater aircraft aircraft for short haul passenger (air tax>i) operations but, no prototypes have been seen yet. Again the claim is that these aircraft will have significantly lower operating costs.

              Another entrant is the 9 passenger Eviation
              ALICE               with a claimed range of 440 nautical miles. The air frame has been on display at air shows but it is yet to fly.

              NASA has built what could be best described as a technology demonstrator, it’s X57 Maxwell with two wing-tip motors for cruising and 12 small motors mounted on the wings for take off and landing. It is supposed to have it’s first flight this year.

              Another interesting concept I encountered was counter rotating propellers, two propellers on the same axis spinning in opposite directions. This concept is complicated to implement with combustion engines but fairly simple with electric motors. This arrangement can lead to some pretty impressive improvements in thrust for a given propeller diameter. While the project that sought to demonstrated the use of this arrangement has morphed into specializing in lightweight batteries, I suspect the idea will eventually show up again.

              All in all there’s a lot of work going on in the electric aviation space but, not much in the way of serial production of aircraft. just yet.

        3. Ron ,
          You are getting a little more boneheaded from one year to the next, lol.

          Well, so am I.

          I agree, there won’t be any BUSINESS AS USUAL transition to renewable energy.

          But people like you, the hard core pessimists, don’t often stop to think what can and most likely WILL be done, once it’s OBVIOUS that it MUST be done….. and by obvious I mean obvious even to Trumpster types who don’t know shit from apple butter about the environment, climate, fossil fuel depletion, etc.

          Leviathan, the nation state, is capable of going to war, and getting very HARD CORE about doing so, once the people running the show decide that it’s in their own best interest to do so.

          We aren’t going to run out of ANYTHING over any very short time frame. There will be time to convert highways to railroads, and it wouldn’t take a good crew more than a day to lay ten or even twenty miles of track down the fast lane of an interstate, lol.

          We can, and we WILL, manage to live just fine on one fourth of the electricity we use today, per capita…… once it’s NECESSARY to do so.

          The amount of money a typical self supporting working class family pisses away on just one flashy new car is more than enough to add a first class solar system, with batteries, triple glazed windows, AND super efficient appliances…… TODAY, to their home.

          A shit load of people make their living because air travel is cheap……. well, they did something else before there was air travel, and they will do something else again.

          Will it be EASY? Hell no.

          It will be extremely hard, there will be rending of hair and knashing of teeth, and there will be violence.

          I expect most of our species to die hard before this century is out.

          But there’s no real reason, so far as I can see, to believe that a country such as the USA, Canada, etc must NECESSARILY collapse back into a pre industrial society.

          Sooner or later people will come to understand, enough of us, I mean, to go to a war time sort of economic footing, and most of us will survive, at least in countries such as the USA, barring the worst sort of bad luck such as a flat out WWIII or the climate going completely nuts……. either of which is a very real possibility but not a given.

    2. Ron,
      I really don’t think you have given the topic of solar [and wind] capability in the USA the kind of consideration and study that the topic deserves, particularly considering your long interest in energy and your great accumulated level of knowledge.
      The task of replacing 75% of the oil (used in transport), and most of the rest of coal that is still used, could be accomplished if we had the national desire to. Considering the vast solar and wind reserves, the drop in costs over the past decade or two, and the current level of technology, the only barrier is the idea that we don’t need to get the job done, or that it is impossible and beyond our means.

      And I say bullshit to that. We have accomplished much harder tasks before. Building the petroleum industry for example- tremendously harder. So was going to the moon, and building a water system for a city. This solar/wind task is not comparably hard in engineering terms.

      The most difficult part is getting enough of the country to wake the fuck up about.
      The then the hardest part is getting enough of it done before depletion of oil is more than 20-30%.
      I am wondering how long you think it will take for USA domestic production to decline 30% from peak?

      If you seriously want to get a glimpse of the magnitude of the solar and wind reserves of the county, and world, then have at the report I link. The summary is at the link, and the full report needs a registration ,but is free and they haven’t bothered me subsequently. Well worth it I believe. And yes, they do use the term ‘reserves’ just like with other fuel sources- [the amount of energy that can be technically recovered at a cost that is financially feasible at the present price of that energy source]

      Here is a summary link- https://carbontracker.org/solar-and-wind-can-meet-world-energy-demand-100-times-over-renewables/

      1. OK, there are some big engineering challenges for improvement here.
        One- improving energy storage
        Two- improving deep water wind turbine deployment
        Three- electricity management

        That should keep the engineering crowd busy.
        But once again, these things are improvement in the current status, and viability of developing the reserves is already here. The barrier is intention.
        note- I do think the financial viability of deep water wind is less certain as things stand today. It may look very different (much more favorable) by 2030. Big companies are already at the stage of deploying big projects. This will likely be a big job source for the maritime/port industries serving the windy zones.

      2. Hickory, of course, the reserves are there. In fact, ALL energy comes from the sun. Hell yes, goddammit, it is there! Errr. Of course, the problem is not the existence of all that energy, it is can we build the infrastructure to capture that energy, that is the question?

        Hey Hickory, I am pro-renewable energy. I love it. I hope it takes over the world. I just don’t believe it will. That is all.

        1. Yeh. Its a matter degree and time.
          To what degree will the job get done, and during what time frame.
          The important time to have the head to grindstone on this is right now, before oil production has declined 10% and more.

          But I am very curious to get your take on the timing in regard to depletion, and how long it will take for domestic production to fall off 20 or 30% from peak plateau? i know its all speculation, but I very much value your take on this .

        2. “renewable energy…I hope it takes over the world. I just don’t believe it will. That is all.”

          Well, there will be a lot of it by 2030 and a hell of a lot more by 2040, in certain places. And conversely there will a lot less oil, and coal.
          Its a setup to have have huge schism in the human population- the energy haves and the energy have nots. Possibly much more extreme than we have today.
          If a younger person lives in a place that is heavily dependent on fossil fuel (especially from outside their state, which is just about everyone) then it would be smart to consider relocating to a place that has great energy reserves, and the will of the local population to get the equipment for production deployed.
          Energy security, like water and food, will be a much harder thing to come by.

          1. That doesn’t make sense to me. Solar and wind are far more widely and equitably distributed than oil, gas and coal.

            Everyone has light, to some degree (for most, it doesn’t vary that much by region: Maine has at least 50% as much sun as Texas).

            Africans are finding that solar flashlights are far cheaper, healthier and easier to refuel than kerosene lamps.

            It’s far better for the local economy to use local wind and solar, versus imported fossil fuels.

            As Egypt’s oil production depletes, it’s building solar farms…

            1. Nick G, just because the solar and/or wind resource is technically and financially viable in the vast majority of the worlds countries does not mean that people will have the wherewithal to have access to it.
              The barriers to just plunging are many. For example, if you’ve got to fund a system for your home/shack or business/workplace- do you have money upfront or are you creditworthy and can afford the finance costs? Do you have space on a roof in in a field that you own and is secure, and is in the sun? Are the local permitting rules favorable? Have the minerals and manufacturing chain been beefed up in your region? Has the grid been modernized?
              When you look at all of these potential obstacles , I think it is pretty certain that many people will not have reliable fossil fuel or electricity from whatever source going forward. The biggest challenge for most people is financial. Electricity from grids will likely go preferentially to those who bid highest for it in places where there is shortage. It will take a long time to build up the renewable capacity.
              And who will have electricity at night or in the winter- those people and regions who can afford storage.
              I think just like with food today- some people have they need, and others are starving to death.

        3. If you’d studied economics a little more, you’d realize that renewable energy already is taking over the world, and that it’s inevitable. There are no technological obstacles left and renewables are simply much cheaper than fossil fuels (and getting cheaper).

          The only question is how long it will take. Unfortunately we’ve got a lot of disaster baked-in before all the old, uneconomic fossil infrastructure is removed/replaced, and we have self-serving crooks begging governments for bailouts for fossil fuels.

          1. There are no technological obstacles left …

            Really now, no technological obstacles left? If you had only studied logic, or reason a little more, or taken the course called Reality 101, you would realize just how absurd that statement is. When did you last take a battery-powered flight? Or when the grid last run on batteries on a cloudy day and the wind was just not very strong? When did you last see a battery-powered long-haul 18 wheeler?

            Some posts are just plain absurd, like yours. I really don’t know why I take the time to reply to them.

            1. Because my posts are not absurd, they are fact-based. And you know it.

              Entire smaller grids are already run on batteries on cloudy days when the wind isn’t strong. These are easy to find information on. Scaling them up is merely a matter of building the factories.

              I have seen battery-powered long-haul 18-wheelers. You can find the YouTube videos. Scaling them up is again merely a matter of building factories.

              Small airplanes are mostly going through regulatory nonsense; there are no technical obstacles to them.

              Long-haul, large-capacity flights do remain an issue requiring some minor technical work, but it’s just not that big an issue. For this limited fleet, we could make synthetic fuel using electricity if we had to. Long-haul, large-capacity flights are a luxury anyway.

              Some posts are just so ignorant I don’t know why I bother responding, and yours was one.

          2. I find it hard to agree with much of the opinions expressed by Nathaniel.
            But we do see nearly eye to eye on this-
            “The only question is how long it will take. Unfortunately we’ve got a lot of disaster baked-in before all the old, uneconomic fossil infrastructure is removed/replaced,”

            It is not the only question however.
            Another big one is just how much total energy the global economy will be able to produce in the decades ahead- will supply remain abundant, or short enough in supply to impose hard limits on economic activity? Which leads to the second question/issue-
            It takes economic might (capital) to pull off such a huge industrial transition. Will the world financial system be in a functional state and will there be enough prosperity to get the job done over the next three decades? This may be the second biggest challenge.
            The biggest challenge will be the ability of humanity to behave itself- wars, failed states, nationalism and fascism, and false belief systems (such as Q Anon , Fox news, The Chinese or Iranian Government, the Republican party, The Fundamentalists of every religion, Anarchists) are all intangible human factors that could severely interrupt the function of economic/industrial activity, and energy transition. We are deep into culture wars folks. Its nothing new, but the accelerates to the smoldering embers are piled extremely high . You might not want to think about it, but the democratic process in USA and the unified country are not guaranteed. It would take very few steps to tear it apart, and to have the gap filled by dysfunctional authoritarianism, or anarchy.
            For example, there is legislation under various phases of enactment in states such as Arizona to give the state legislatures the authority to choose the presidential election winner (if they don’t like the fact that the democratic candidate won the citizen vote). If this comes to be, this country and this democracy will be at overt civil war status.

            1. I think your list is dancing around the underlining real problem. It’s class warfare and the haves holding on to power all restraints off. It’s only been democracy as long as the haves are in control.

            2. HB. Yeh, the wealth inequality issue is a huge root, a huge source of potential instability.

          3. Is that why four fifths of energy use is from FFs and with more growth expected then? Solar and wind barely even making a fraction of that last fifth up. I’ve literally heard this same tune for decades, along with “This climate agreement will be the one where things change!” Guess why I’m not optimistic. Note: nothing to do with technical problems, of which we still have many anyway. Everything to do with humans, the aspect of the equation you’re not inputting into your views. The reason WHY we’re nowhere near a renewable powered paradise yet (and before you say it, I’m very much not pro-FF, being an ecologist).

            Let me know when we have even 50% global energy usage from renewables. Then we’ll talk. Until then, the massive increase in negligible levels of production is a load of hot air.

            And hey, if that happens, I’ll have egg on my face. But it won’t stop the system running against limits, as so many are obsessed with removing FFs without realising the shell game that is without curbing consumption of planetary resources and production of wastes. A Green New Deal, as written now, solves nothing of the planetary crisis. But it does make people feel warm and fuzzy inside when they drive a Tesla powered by Solar City PV to their organic coffee shop.

            1. Kleiber,

              Growth trend for wind and solar from 2005 to 2019 was about 20% per year on average (BP data), energy consumption grew at about 1.6% per year from 2008-2018, if those rates continue in the future we get to over 50% of primary energy from wind and solar by 2036.

              The rates of growth will eventually slow, but an assumption that the growth of wind and solar falls to 10% per year from 2037 to 2044 results in all primary energy being replaced by wind and solar by 2044.

        4. I case I wasn’t clear about it, I agree with you Ron in that the deployment of renewable energy (wind and solar) will not be deployed ata rapid enough pace and large enough scale to replace fossil fuels anytime soon. It is a huge project, and not taken seriously by most of the world economic/policy decision makers. They are mostly living in the last decade or before, when solar was more expensive and the global solar reserves were zero. Now the global reserves are simply huge.

          Regarding Nick G’s question- to be clear, yes it is likely theoretically possible to provide enough energy for the civilization to carry on and in a widely distributed network available to everyone, but human management of the situation is poor in this sphere, just as it is in almost about everything else we try to manage.

          1. Energy, yes (although if we started decades ago). But you cannot keep the party going indefinitely as it is. If we solve the energy/exergy crisis, that only means we run into another problem later on. There isn’t a “we stopped emitting carbon from FFs, so now we’re saved” outcome here. There is voluntary cessation of growth or involuntary.

            I vote for the former.

            1. “I vote for…voluntary cessation of growth”

              Yes that is a nice notion.
              How are you accomplishing that in your life?
              No kids, no meat, no purchases?

    3. That is one shitty article (though I agree with your main point).
      It contains this completely delusional passage:

      That lets AOC, Senator Warren, Al Gore, Michael Mann, Greenpeace, and other “climate crisis-renewable energy” profiteers preen about climate justice, sustainability and saving Planet Earth.

      They refuse to discuss the bogus hockey stick temperature graph; the ways Mann & Co. manipulated and hid data, and deleted incriminating emails; their inability to separate human influences from the powerful natural forces that have caused climate changes throughout history; or the absurd notion that the 0.01% of Earth’s atmosphere that is carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use over the past 50 years is somehow responsible for every extreme weather event today.

      But they won’t be able to ignore this fraud forever.

    4. These arguments are typically made assuming that we need to replace, fossil fuel kWhr with renewable kWhr with no other variables involved. Given that renewable source energies, wind and solar, are pretty diffuse, and that we mindlessly use prodigious amounts of energy, this transition seems pretty daunting. What seems to be always missing from these arguments is that we have plenty of other options, especially conservation, efficiency and lifestyle measures. As an example, my own work in the housing industry over the last 45 years has made clear that a 80-90 percent reduction in energy is possible. The building science, construction measures and economic justification are all well established. In my own case, on a 120 year old brick house, I’ve reduced heating by 60%, electricity and hot water by 100% and transportation energy by over half and done it for less than a kitchen remodel. This is a cultural and social problem, not a technical one.

      1. Jim, there may be cultural and social issues with the transition from fossil fuel to total renewables. But it is basically a technical problem. I know there is a lot of ways to make a 120-year-old house more energy-efficient, but all modern houses in the US are built with energy efficiency in mind. They all have insulated walls and ceilings, they all have double-paned windows. And anyway, it’s a world problem, not just a local one. I don’t think you are going to tell people in Asia, Africa, Europe, or wherever how to mend their energy-wasting ways. You are definitely not going to solve this problem by social change.

        1. The four wheels that bought us to ” peak civilisation ” were ” Think , work ,play and keep your mouth shut ” ( Einstein) . These fell of in GFC 2008 and the new wheels are ” QE , ZIRP , Financial Engineering or fraud and Virtual Reality ” . As a spare wheel we have loud mouths (calling Mr Musk & company ) . Let us see how far can these take us , not much in my opinion .

    5. While I am not going to dispute the article, since it pretty much just repeats what I already see in the literature and from common sense. I am going to say that the site is a shilling mouthpiece for climate change denial. Just check out their about section and other articles to see why. CO2 is a trace gas therefore, no issues? LOL. What next, flat earth models don’t suffer heating?

      I am rather annoyed with how often legit concerns about one-for-one replacing of fossil fuels with renewables being not an easy task is co-opted by right wing science deniers. I guess it’s the enemy of my enemy thing, even so, when you have to point out that the Koch Bros. are full of shit… except for the broken clock syndrome thing where they talk about matters relating to renewable rollout, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

  19. Some of the regulars here will remember that as far back as two or three years ago I posted several comments to the effect that the vast majority of our law enforcement people are honest, dedicated, and proud of the work they do, and committed to maintaining this country as a country of laws, rather than of men.

    And now that the Democrats are in charge of the federal law enforcement establishment………. I’m thinking that a hell of a lot of people associated with trump and his organization are thinking about maybe simply disappearing, if they can figure out how to manage it, lol.

    1. January 6th Trumpsters aren’t the brightest light bulbs. It’s called the Derek Chauvin lesson, don’t miss the Wal-Mart sale on white sheets.

    2. There’s plenty of evidence out there that Republicans helped spread Trump’s lie. They did it in press releases. They did it in political videos. They did it in public speeches in front of large crowds. They did it in tweets. They went on live television and did it. It was all happening in plain sight.

      And on Jan. 6, one of the most egregious attacks on democracy took place right after the insurrection and requires no investigation. It was when dozens of House and Senate Republicans voted to overturn the election based on that lie ― just hours after a white supremacist mob of Trump supporters smashed their way into the Capitol with plans to kill Pelosi, Vice President Mike Pence and others to stop them from certifying President-elect Joe Biden’s win. They did that because they believed the lie.

      It should be no surprise, then, that nearly all of the same GOP lawmakers who voted to overturn the election also don’t want an independent panel to examine the Capitol riot. Of the 139 House Republicans who voted in January to overturn the election based on the lie, 131 of them voted Wednesday not to create a commission to investigate the insurrection that was fueled by that lie.

      The most glaring names on the list are House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), House GOP Whip Steve Scalise (La.) and newly elected GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (N.Y.). All three of them have peddled Trump’s lie. All three of them voted to overturn the election on Jan. 6. And all three of them tried to bury that reality on Wednesday.

      https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-overturn-election-january-6-commission_n_60a554c0e4b03e1dd391ec5c

  20. Renewable energy could power the world by 2050.

    In about three decades? I think that may be a bit optimistic, but…

    It’s possible to switch to a fully sustainable global energy landscape within the next 30 years, according to research.

    In thirty years we will be living in a different world. However, I think the decline in oil production will far outpace any conversion to renewable energy. That is one argument I have not heard discussed on this forum. I guess that is because the optimistic contributors to the subject do not think it will take near 30 years. Therefore they believe the conversion to renewables will outpace the decline in crude oil production. Well, if it takes 30 years to convert, it most certainly will not.

    1. “I think the decline in oil production will far outpace any conversion to renewable energy.”

      I have expressed such concerns frequently and consistently here.
      I think you are correct. It is what is happening and will happen.
      I’ll change my tune on it once I am proven wrong by the facts on ground.
      I’d gladly be wrong about it.

      Wishful thinking does not make it happen.

      1. If it were only as simple as energy transition. Currently one in nine people in the world go hungry each day and suffer from nutritional deficiencies as a result. Many children across the world do not have some of their most basic needs met (Rates of under-five child mortality remain high). Forests are being depleted at a rate of 26 million hectares every year. Our oceans are under threat. Overfishing and unsustainable fishing practices are causing the endangerment and extinction of many marine species (recently highlighted in the Netflix documentary “Seaspiracy”) and microplastics litter our oceans. About two billion people still use a water source that is contaminated with human waste, and about the same number don’t have access to adequate toilet facilities. The list goes on…… But lets pretend adoption of EVs will solve all our problems.

          1. I don’t have one, do you? Or, maybe with 80 plus million humans being added to Earth every year some bright guy or gal will emerge with one. Hope it happens soon. 😉

            1. Your right Doug, there is no silver bullet that will put Humdty Dumpty back together again. But there are a thousand plus items humanity can do to improve the situation and in the future there will be another thousand plus new items that can be done. Humanity and earth will evolve. How and when it ends is in our hands.

              One of the major lessons I learned in my career was applying myself with a positive attitude has a much better out come to the task at hand. Doing nothing was never an acceptable practice. Employers have no interest in hiring Debbie Downer. We can always do better. EV’s are just one of the first steps and low hanging fruit. Addressing human reproduction needs to be Job One.

              Live your life to the fullest everyday like it could be your last.

              Education, education, education

            2. I have no solutions either , but I go by David Korowicz quote ” For something to work every time , it must work anytime and anywhere ” . This is the test . Our current state of affairs is like a patient with multiple diseases . Fix diabetes and the blood pressure goes up , fix blood pressure the liver starts playing truant , fix that and the kidneys are failing . Mankind has painted itself into a corner and is fenced by complexity and connectivity . I don’t see a way out . No, I am not hopeless just ” I hope less ” .

            3. “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” Voltaire

              “Give them the third best to go on, the second best comes to late and the best never comes” Robert Watson-Watt

            4. “One of the major lessons I learned in my career was applying myself with a positive attitude has a much better out come to the task at hand.” ~ HB

              That sounds like something you learn at a Tony Robbins seminar. You see Doug, HB has a positive attitude, and you do not. Problem solved. Very Oprah.

              “Positive thinking is the only bullshit philosophy that America has contributed to human thought” ~ Zitate von Osho

              https://www.uwe-kemper.de/aktuelles/positive-thinking-is-the-only-bullshit-philosophy-that-america-has-contributed-to-human-thought-nothing-else/

              “There is a vast difference between positive thinking and existential courage” ~ Barbara Ehrenreich

              https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jan/10/smile-or-die-barbara-ehrenreich

            5. Just got back from a beautiful day on the white sands of the beach. The women all running around almost naked, the warm Mediterranean sun on my face and the cool water of the Pacific on my feet. Headed to Taco Surf for margarita happy hour and fajitas for dinner shortly. Then going to enjoy the rest of the evening on the dance floor with the senorita’s.

              Later Debbie, enjoy your bug out bag

        2. Hey Doug- “If it were only as simple as energy transition.”
          I couldn’t agree more.

          1. “You see Doug, HB has a positive attitude and you do not.”
            So did my friend who died this week with Covid , didn’t help or save him .

      2. I have a pretty big caveat to that whole conclusion Ron, in that I agree with what OFM has said many times.
        Some places will do OK.
        Some places have have plenty of food production, water, and can pull off a big renewable energy deployment. If they get to it.

        1. Hickory,

          Not too sure. If the places doing okay are militarily weak the nations with the larger armies will end up calling the shots.

          What I’ve said is pure conjecture in any case. I have no idea what will happen.

          1. True Iron Mike. Warfare can certainly stir the pot.
            Just what asset is Russia most interested in physically controlling?
            I mention them because they will have the domestic oil to roll their tanks and swarm their jets beyond the time that many others will no longer be able to.
            They likely will want to reconstitute the Soviet Union, from Lithuania to Kazakhstan,etc.

            Some places have pretty good energy/food prospects, such as Argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay, Canada/USA, Australia, Russia/Kazak/Ukraine. These places rank high on the list of hectares/capita of arable land, and all have well above average mix of energy prospects. Clearly Russia could take any/all of the old Soviet states. Can the rest on the list hold their turf?
            China could take any one of a dozen neighboring countries, but all of these places are already filled up with people. They already will have control of the local markets, sea routes and financial systems without having to fire a shot.

            1. I’ve got some bad news for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YToMoNPwTFc

              This is for the weakest possible fallout from climate change, with no other impacts. The bread baskets of the world are screwed.

              While we sit here arguing over when EVs are going to replace our personal ICE vehicles, the world moves steadily towards a period where just producing food will be a major hurdle.

              To quote the Principal from Interstellar: We didn’t run out of planes and television sets. We ran out of food.

            2. Kleiber- the vulnerability of food production system in this world is similar to energy in a very important way- there will be haves and have-nots. And the episodes of shortage could make the China experience in the 1950’s look very familiar.

          2. I don’t have any IDEA what will happen, in terms of details.
            But I’m willing to bet the farm that things will play out, overall, just about the same way they always have, in general historical terms.

            There will be war, hot and cold, starting with local riots, right on up to conflicts between major regional powers.

            People will die hard, some slow, some fast, in countless places.

            People will try to migrate, and some will succeed, but more will probably be met with fences backed up with machine guns.

            And some countries will get it together well enough to do what ” the powers that be ” decide should be done in order to ensure the survival of their home country. Cynics may prefer to phrase this as ensuring their OWN survival as top cats, that’s true, I won’t argue the point, lol.

            The question largely turns on how long it takes various countries to come to the realization that unless immediate, drastic measures are taken, the country will descend into chaos or worse.

            This is why I occasionally remind everybody to pray to their favorite mountain, snake, animal, or sky daddy or sky mommy for a series of Pearl Harbor Wake Up Events.

            Such events will be enough to get the national attention but not so harmful that they seriously reduce the capacity of the country to react proactively ……. IF there are enough of them close enough together.

            I know it sounds cruel, but maybe one of the very best things that could happen, in terms of the future of the world at large, would be a short but hot oil war, so long as it doesn’t escalate to the point the nukes fly.

            A few tens of thousands of dead people as the result of such a war would be a very small price to pay for advancing the transition away from fossil fuels by a decade or more, in terms of reducing future deaths due to the Four Horsemen.

  21. About maritime fret. Currently, most of the fret is transported by container ships. For example, a container ship departing from London and going to Melbourne, takes 48 days to complete the journay with port of calls and passage through Suez canal. In the 1930s, the last four-masted sailing ships with experienced captains made the journey from Melbourne to London and passing south to the Cape of Good Hope in 90 or 100 days. You will tell me that they did not carry shoddy plastic Chinese sandals but cargoes like wheat, nitrates, minerals, coal, wood, sometimes petroleum and so on. Yes, absolutely, but at that time sandals were locally made and repaired, if possible. You will tell me also that they were not able to go through Suez and Panama canals because of the lack of winds in these areas. Agreed and currently, the technology of diesel engines did improve enough to give a sailing ship the power necessary (see the diesel engines of MTU for the tanks, that’s amazing) to go through these canals, to dock in a port and to avoid to be drossed on reefs. Furthermore, with the help of meteorological forecasts, an experienced captain could use for the best the winds available and avoid the storms which were the cause, at least, of a lot of equipments breakages on sailing ships and of some shipwrecks.

  22. Regarding EVs and the transition to “clean” energy. I noticed a lot of people downplaying the environmental impact of EV batteries. Especially Nick G who usually downplays everything bad regarding renewables. Or the monumental engineering challenges regarding the transition etc.

    This is a recent article, the sources look quite impartial. Basically if new technologies and recycling aren’t cost feasible which at the moment they aren’t. Wall street and the spin of “green” will guarantee the plundering of our ocean floors if the demand and price (of the respective commodities) are ripe for the picking. I almost have no doubt this will happen and billionaires will cash in once again at the expense of a stupid population and the further trashing of the planets ecosystems.

    https://therevelator.org/ev-batteries-seabed-mining/

    This is the 2019 study by UTS (a reputable university in Sydney Australia) PDF format
    https://www.earthworks.org/cms/assets/uploads/2019/04/MCEC_UTS_Report_lowres-1.pdf

    Please I advise people to scroll to the last page of this report. A neat table is showing the path to 1.5 degree warming from 2015-2050, and dare i say the monumental task and cooperative efforts required world wide that is required in terms of electricity generation and EVs.

    For me i say, it might be possible to get to those targets but i just can’t see it happening with an odds of < 1%. Either way the task required might further destroy vital ecosystems and god knows what else in the process. Or maybe i am just a pessimist.

    Dennis might want to weigh in on this as he is usually the antidote to my pessimism lol

Comments are closed.