92 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, January 31”

  1. I put up a new post two days ago. It is called “The Wrong Argument” or “The Great Non-Sequitur”. I would love for you to read it and leave a comment as to your thoughts. Thank you.

    I have decided that my next post, which will be out in about another week, give or take, will be on the philosophy of Naturalism. Naturalists are people who believe that nothing exists outside the natural world. Or, you might call it “the physical world”. Sean Carroll says nothing exists outside the physical world because the laws of physics do not permit it. Does that sentence make sense to you?

    If you would like to be notified when I have a new post out then email me at: DarwinianOne@gmail.com Or, simply reply to this post telling me to put you on the list. Your email address is available to me even though it does not appear in the post.

    http://thefinetuneduniverse.com/

    1. Question for you Ron,
      How do you define “universe” as opposed to “multiverse”?

      To ME, THE universe contains absolutely everything that exists or can ( or potentially exists because we don’t know about it) exist.

      I probably didn’t make my own preference clear in this respect, but I believe there IS only one UNIVERSE but that that there’s very likely many things we don’t yet know about it.

      Consider for instance the black matter question, and the well known fact that even the world’s best math and physics guys and girls make it perfectly clear that THEY don’t understand quantum mechanics.

      So……. it’s altogether possible that there are hidden aspects of whatever constitutes ULTIMATE reality about which we haven’t even a CLUE.

      I sometimes refer to these potentially hidden corners of THE UNIVERSE as multiverses.
      I’ve not yet run across any reason to believe that our present day understanding of what we CAN see and measure is the sum total of reality.

      This assumption appears to me to be the absolute height and pinnacle of mankind’s ARROGANCE.

      I’ve yet to see any understandable ideas as to the ORIGIN of the Big Bang for instance… so if we ASS U ME the BIG BANG just WAS, well we might as well assume there’s an eternal god out there somewhere pulling all the cosmos’s strings.

      Has anybody yet offered a conclusive argument as to whether the expansion of space will continue indefinitely, or there will be a BIG CONTRACTION?

      I took a few courses in math, and I very well remember talking to a math professor about infinity while discussing probability.

      As best I remember, it was more or less accepted as proven that anything that CAN happen WILL happen, given enough trials. It doesn’t really matter, from a purely objective intellectual stand point, how UNLIKELY it seems for the universe as we know it to be randomly assembled, as opposed to being tuned.

      We may THINK we know how old the universe is, but we don’t know it’s origin any more so than a shaman or witch doctor reciting the mythologies of his tribe, because we don’t have any serious explanation for the Big Bang, as far as I can see. Anything along that line is pure speculation as far as I can follow it.

      Furthermore, although I’m no philosopher of science, or any other sort, it’s my firm belief that we are incapable of ULTIMATE understanding…. because we understand anything and everything in terms of SOMETHING else, or several somethings, accepted intuitively, as givens.
      So we know hot as opposed to cold, up as opposed to down, matter as opposed to energy, energy as opposed to matter, and that they can be interchangeable…… but at that point…… we’re sort of STUCK, aren’t we?

      We don’t really know what goes on inside black holes, although we do have a few good clues. We don’t know why we can’t detect most of the matter that all that math tells us MUST EXIST.

      Maybe it exists but outside the limits of our current methods of detecting it. Maybe it exists in “other ” universes where the constants, and the rules, are different.

      No matter how improbable our “known universe” is, it’s possible, in terms of understanding infinity, that there are countless other ” unknown “universes out there..

      I don’t even pretend to know, myself.

      People who win lotteries, women who are exceptionally beautiful, men who are uncommonly strong and handsome, tend to think they’re something special in terms of the cosmic big picture, lol. But they’re just lucky.

      Maybe nearly all the cosmologists working today, excepting the five percent, just don’t want to stand out from the crowd.. which is not a good place to be in terms of university politics, grants and funding, being tapped for high offices in government or industry….. etc.

      So…. so long as they don’t have any good reason to say otherwise….. and I’m the first to admit they have no positive evidence for saying otherwise…… they just stay quiet and go along with the status quo.

      I have had a number of talks with professionals in various fields who are perfectly ready to speculate outside the conventional boxes of their specialties……. privately, given that they know I won’t repeat what they’ve said with their name associated with my repeating it.

      1. How do you define “universe” as opposed to “multiverse”?

        Mac, I did not coin these terms, this was done by the physicists and cosmologists themselves. So don’t blame me because they are confusing. The term “Universe” does mean everything that exists. While the term “Multiverse” is many, many times everything that exists. Stupid, yes, but I had no part in this stupidity.

        No, it’s not “Black Matter” it is “Dark Matter”, or it should be called “Invisible Matter”. And yes, there is one hell of a lot we do not understand. But we do know that something exists instead of nothing. And that is what we are trying to get our heads around. Of course, we cannot definitively answer that question, but we can speculate. That is what philosophers do. If you do not think philosophy is a valid field, then so be it. I think it is.

        As best I remember, it was more or less accepted as proven that anything that CAN happen WILL happen, given enough trials. Well, no that is not proven. It is only an assumption. How on earth would one prove such a thing. Anyway, that statement is irrelevant because there can never be enough trials.

        Maybe nearly all the cosmologists working today, excepting the five percent, just don’t want to stand out from the crowd.. which is not a good place to be in terms of university politics, grants and funding, being tapped for high offices in government or industry….. etc.

        Bullshit! It is just not the nature of a cosmologist not to want to stand out from the crowd. They spend their lifetime trying to find some theory or fact that will make them stand out from the crowd. That is their dream.

        I will have a new post tomorrow on infinity and odds. You questioned my knowledge of infinigy before so please read it and comment there. Take care, Ron

        1. Quantum mechanics is proof that this universe is a simulation. It also proves that consciousness is above matter. The universe is superconsciousness and this universe is just one playground.

          1. Quantum mechanics is proof that this universe is a simulation.

            And what physicists or cosmologists told you that? Or where did you read it? They didn’t tell you anything and you didn’t read it anywhere. Some people love to just make up shit like that. They think it makes them appear intelligent. Actually, it has the opposite effect.

          2. Consciousness is above matter?

            Try your consciousness in the fight with primitive matter – for example a bottle of cheap whisky. Who wins ;).

            1. Eulenspiegel, if you noticed he said of, quantum mechanics, It also proves that consciousness is above matter. Of course it proves no such thing.

              However, the Hard Problem of Consciousness has been debated for over a century. Of course, if you are a Naturalist, then you believe nothing exists except matter. Therefore mind and matter are one and the same thing.

              I am not a Naturalists and don’t buy that definition of mind at all. However, I will have more to say about that in a later post on my website, http://thefinetuneduniverse.com/

            2. Maybe he meant that consciousness matters,
              (if viewed from the side perspective).

              Which side?, I ask.

          3. Quantum mechanics doesn’t “prove” anything. It is what it is. It will probably be superseded someday.

            The fact that quantum mechanics sits uncomfortably with so many people (despite being stunningly accurate) is evidence that human intuition is not a solution to all intellectual challenges, but a narrow set of tools for dealing with a narrow set of problems.

            Intuition is a product of evolution, which always cuts corners when it can. Humans, like all animals, need to to be armed with heuristics that allow them to judge familiar situations quickly and with reasonable accuracy. Evolution has delivered that, but nothing more.

            Interactions between subatomic particles are not familiar situations, so we have no built-in heuristics to deal with them. They are strange to us. Photons aren’t billiard balls, though we like to think of them that way. Any theory that accurately describes them will seem strange.

            The discussion of whether light is a wave or a particle went on for centuries. It seems intuitively obvious that it must be one or the other. But that intuition delivers the wrong answer.

            A flower that seems monochrome to you may have colored patterns that a bee can clearly see. Dandelions are an example. Those colors are simply beyond your comprehension, because you aren’t built to see them. But they are real. In the same way, quantum mechanics may never make sense to you, but still provide accurate predictions.

    1. Thwaites is coming undone–
      How fast is the issue.
      Even in my mid 70’s, I might see.

  3. Alexey Miller: “Soyuz Vostok” will allow transporting 50 billion cubic meters to China m of gas per year
    02 February / 14:29

    Saint Petersburg. Thanks to the commissioning of the Soyuz Vostok gas pipeline, Russia will be able to supply about 50 billion cubic meters to China. m of gas per year. This was announced by the head of Gazprommoa Alexey Miller.

    For a special report on the continuation of the Power of Siberia-2 pipeline on the Russia 24 TV channel, Miller noted that Russia and Mongolia have close good neighborly relations and he is confident that the Soyuz Vostok gas pipeline will further strengthen cooperation between the parties.

    “The project of the Soyuz Vostok gas pipeline is very large-scale. It will become a continuation of the Russian gas pipeline Power of Siberia-2 and will allow supplying about 50 billion cubic meters of gas per year to the most dynamically growing Chinese gas market in the world. Completion of the feasibility study – this is the passage of a very important stage in the implementation of the project, and at the same time the beginning of a new stage. This is the transition to the design stage,” Miller emphasized.

    The feasibility study was approved at the end of January this year. The documentation showed that the project is technically feasible and economically viable. The parties plan to jointly conduct engineering surveys and design of gas pipeline facilities in 2022 and 2023. The total length of the gas pipeline in the Mongolian section will be 960 km, it will transport 50 billion cubic meters of gas per year.

    1. All debts must ultimately be paid with either goods or services. You can’t eat electrons in a bank account, nor gold coins. Coins and electrons are useful only so long as they can be traded for goods and services.

      So.. what will the Russians get in exchange for their gas..?…. Armaments they don’t need. Food they SHOULD be able to produce for themselves, excepting fruits and vegetables that don’t grow well if at all in northern climates.
      Consumer goods…. maybe. Likely even. Construction materials, a good possibility.

      China has a major domestic food and population problem already, but China is well along in successfully building an overseas empire modeled after the “soft”American empire model….. one made possible by providing money and technical assistance with any and every sort of infrastructure problem from roads to rail to hydro power to oil and gas production, etc.

      There are many easily found articles outlining the way China is taking over large tracts of good farmland in other countries….. thousands of hectares at a go, sometimes ten thousand or more.
      It’s hard to guess how the local people in such places will fare a few decades down the road…. but I don’t think they’re going to be happy about foreigners occupying their best farmland.

      I’m thinking our grandchildren will quite possibly be cussing our memory when they get to thinking about the once upon a time Monroe Doctrine, and how it came to be that we were so naive as to abandon it.

      We’re living in interesting times.

      There are so many wild cards in play that anything imaginable could happen…. so long as it’s bad.
      It’s possible, maybe likely, that as time passes China will assume the job of providing a military umbrella for smaller nearby countries…… or coercing such countries into military and economic alliances, regardless of the wishes of the peoples living in them.

      It’s hard to even guess which countries will be at risk from other more powerful countries two or three decades down the road, other than a few in the Middle East……. which will likely be at each other’s throat indefinitely or until one or another country manages to simply overwhelm it’s enemies and occupy them long term.

    2. My immediate thought on reading this post was that China and Russia make great partners in accelerating the destruction of the human ecosphere in order to resolve Russia’s short term need for cash to intimidate it’s neighbors and China’s need to keep expanding their economy. The two countries are bound by an urgent need to prevent their fractured societies from collapse. But then isn’t all of industrial society under the same pressure?

    3. The Union East failed once again. I suppose they did not agree on the price. Miller (the head of Gazprom) did not go to Beijing with Putin. Despite the presentation of the project, it was not concluded.

    1. Yes. Its the big risk we all try hard to ignore, and that the vast majority of us no close to nothing about.
      Loss of a smooth functioning system is in the cards-
      localized and temporary, or widespread and permanent?

      1. It is difficult to understand how the widespread use of the internet and commercially developed software has found it’s way into managing most of the technical infrastructure in the world. Anybody who has spent any time with these software “marvels” quickly understands that they are pretty much put together like the package used in the movie “Jurassic Park” and about as secure as the shell of a snail.

        1. jjhman – possibly another candidate to indicate we’ve reached the point where adding complexity is achieving little in marginal gains (a la Tainter).

          1. I am a fan of Tainter . Complexity and connectivity are the Achilles heel of IC . Too add , the three legs of the stool called IC are Oil , Electricity and metals and all 3 are now under stress . Let us see which leg breaks first and that will move to the next step down the ladder a la Tainter .

          2. I saw an article in the local paper this AM that showed the guts of the control system for a modern battery backed up, grid connected home solar installation. Complexity? It seemed beyond silly. Yet it is true that modern cars with more copper wire than the phone company had in 1950 are crazy reliable, yet virtually unrepairable after a few years when all of the electrical goodies are “obsolete”. Now in California the utilities are fighting home solar systems on the basis of the fact that when a home system is selling electricity back to the grid the home owner is not paying for the maintenance of the grid which, in my case, is about 2/3 of the cost of my electric bill, generation being the smaller part. So we have here multiple levels of complexity; component, system, grid, economic and political. And who do we have to winnow through these issues for the best overall solution? Elected officials. If that doesn’t scare you you aren’t paying attention.

  5. True that we fancy ourselves as living in the ‘land of the free’ and unencumbered capitalism with little to no central economic planning.

    Anyone who has witnessed boom and bust cycles and the extreme accumulation of wealth among a few know full well the failings of the system.
    Another failing is lack of high level economic planning, and here is a prime example-
    “The nation’s largest electric grid operator, PJM Interconnection, is so clogged with requests from energy developers seeking connections to its regional transmission network in the eastern United States that it is proposing a two-year pause on reviewing more than 1,200 energy projects, most of them solar power.”
    “Anyone paying attention would acknowledge that this has a tremendous impact on climate policy and energy policy in the United States.”
    “About 2,500 projects are awaiting action by the grid operator, which is based in Valley Forge, Pa., outside Philadelphia.”

    https://www.post-gazette.com/business/powersource/2022/02/02/pjm-interconnection-queue-energy-projects-electricity-grid-operator-backlog-approval-process/stories/202202020087

    1. Here’s a map of the projects:
      https://mapservices.pjm.com/renewables/

      2,500 projects! I couldn’t find an estimate of how that compares to the 100GW grid that PJM manages. It’s probably more than is needed: I counted 4 wind projects at 1.5GW each with a very cursory look. That would mean you have to have a very careful research, analysis, forecasting, planning and approval process to support denials (which often generate lawsuits due to the large amounts of money involved).

      I’ve been part of a similar group: it’s very doable, but it’s complex and time consuming. You have a lot of moving parts…

      1. Let us know when we have more than is ‘needed’
        Until then, I will remain deeply concerned about shortage, and global warming.

        Currently wind and solar energy combined provide less than 2 % of the US primary energy consumption.

        1. Hickory,

          I’m not sure what your point is – I think we want the same thing here: to install as much renewable power as soon as possible.

          My point is that there appears to be a surplus of potential projects: a region that uses an average of 100GW probably doesn’t need more than maybe about 200GW of wind capacity and 300GW of solar capacity in the longterm, and less in the short term. It’s a lot of work to sort through 2,500 projects (another 1,000 more expected soon) and identify the best ones and then implement them.

          Is PJM doing everything possible to do so? It’s a good question. I would hope that they would be investing a lot into expanding their capacity for working through this interconnection backlog. Some utilities (and ISOs) are part of the problem and some are part of the solution: PJM doesn’t have the strongest track record here for such projects. On the other hand, they’re in a low-solar insolation area and every utility makes reliability their highest priority.

          1. “a region that uses an average of 100GW”
            that is not a consumption amount- you are confusing capacity once again,
            and you are just guessing what that regions total energy consumption is.

            regardless, it is an extremely dysfunctional system that is on the way to severe under-performance in the task at hand.

            1. that is not a consumption amount- you are confusing capacity once again,
              and you are just guessing what that regions total energy consumption is.

              Okay, here’s a source: “2018 GWh of annual energy – 806,546” from:
              https://learn.pjm.com/-/media/about-pjm/newsroom/fact-sheets/pjm-statistics.ashx

              806,546 GW hours divided by 8,760 hours per year equals 92GW as an annual average.

              An annual average of 92.07GW is equal to an annual total of 806,546 GW hours. They are two ways of saying the same thing. Does that make sense?

            2. I back away from the conversation,
              fading over the horizon…
              No longer visible,
              and thankfully out of earshot.

            3. Hickory, I would stay with Nick on this. It’s confusing. Energy is measured in GWh, power in GW. So 2 GW for one hour is 2 GWh. However, you can show energy consumption by just giving a power number, eg 2 GW, and then multiplying by the number of hours. To add to the confusion there is the capacity factor. So a 6 MW wind farm with a 40% capacity factor would produce 6 MW * 40% * 24 hours = 57.6 MWh – which could also be expressed as 2.4 MW…

            4. Hickory,

              When you use electricity you consume power over some period of time the average power used over the period t (in hours, days, moths, or years) times the length of the period is the energy consumed.

              Lets say you consume 600 kWh of electricity in 30 days, that is 30 times 24 or 720 hours and your average power use over those 30 days would be 600/720 or 0.833 kW.

              When looking at electricity use average power consumption is often considered.

              So when you read about 856 TWh of World annual solar generation in 2020 (BP stats), that is the same as 97.7 GW of average solar power generation for the World in 2020.
              The World total electricity generation from all sources averaged 3062 GW in 2020, solar was about 3% of the total and wind about 6%. Coal, Natural gas, and oil provided about 61% of total electricity generation in 2020, with coal at 35% and natural gas at 23%.

              Note that if growth in solar and wind continue at the average rate of the 2011 to 2019 period of 28.8% and 14% respectively and electricity consumption grows at 2.5% (2015-2019 rate) then all fossil fuel use for electricity generation could be replaced by 2034.

  6. “Have tipping points already been passed for critical climate systems? (7) Summing up: Faster than forecast, cascades loom”

    David Spratt et.al. at Climate Code Red have always been more willing than most to state things as they are rather than try for some conservative scientific objectivity and as such have been consistently more accurate in forecasts (not that it has made the slightest difference to the Australian government. This series of seven briefings on global tipping points that we have passed or are at least committed to is excellent.
    http://www.climatecodered.org

    And so is (as always) the latest from Alex Smith
    https://www.ecoshock.org

    1. Yes, an excellent summation of the current status of the human predicament. When will ‘it’s too late’ ever be uttered by (full in the blank… IPCC, nations, NASA, etc, etc??). NEVER! Because it’s never too late, right? Instead we will continue to hear ‘I/we told you so.’

      I recall seeing movies with some command central scenes giving the impression that an organization (usually military) had a pulse on the threats to humanity. And in (most) of those movies, are all is resolved with the actions of the heroes/heroines. Do any of you know of any such group (or plans for such) that would/is acting on this planetary issue? Is there even something/anything to really do about it? I get the impression all that’s left to do is watch and read about it. As it’s happening, real time.

      1. Edgy – you don’ hold to the idea that the Zuck, Big Bad Bez, Muskie Muskrat or Dark Lord Brinpage will save us then? Even if we allow them zero tax rates

    2. Thanks George, interesting reading.

      I’ve been saying for awhile now, where we live, we’re living on borrowed time. Surrounded by evergreen forest (much of it dead or dying from various diseases) one nearby lightning strike on a windy day and we’re hooped. We have been lucky to avoid disaster in two recent major wildfire seasons but that’s what it was, luck. Our local forester insists, privately, we have crossed a rural living tipping point owing to ever increasing wildfire threats.

    3. This so pisses me off, given that we’ve known what could happen and what we should do since I was in high school in the 1970s. All our particular efforts here on the farm — living locally, growing food, staying home, etc. — have been for nought.

      For nought.

      1. I don’t know you at all but I’d guess you’ve led a pretty good life and the universe is a slightly better place than it would have been had you not lived it, which is about as much as any of us can hope for. To one significant figure everything any of us do is for nought.

      2. “For nought.”

        Yes indeed. I think that pretty much the whole primate evolution chain for the last 10 million years could also be seen as such. Or maybe it goes back further every since the mouth was weaponized with teeth and digestive enzymes. Filter feeding that selected only dead matter would have been more kind. [Kind being the opposite of ‘humane’]

        But I thank you deeply for all of your efforts.
        Greatly appreciated.

        1. At least it has been fun. I enjoy farming and have learned to do a lot. I’ve had experiences most people can’t say they’ve had:

          Putting up loose hay in the barn

          Driving a horse on a beach (we found we couldn’t do it on the roads around here, too dangerous)

          Taking firewood from the stump to the woodshed

          Hand-milking cows and making cheese

          Learning the horrors of raising apples in New England

          Horse-drawn sleighing on winter roads (only to confront snowmobiles that spooked the horse)

          I could go on but I won’t.

    4. At some point I expect we will see a new brand of populism.
      Its fuel will be an unusual marriage between industrialists and a large slug of the global young hopeful.
      Its leaders will promise mass scale geo-engineering.

      1. What better way to solve the world’s most serious problem than by hiring a cabal of the innocent and the cynical to go to work with the same tools that caused the problem? I don’t know if the concept of geo-engineering is more laughable or scary. I’m convinced that since humanity has seen what life is like at it’s best in industrial society, cars, big houses, electricity, medical miracles, airplanes, everything will be tried to prolong it but as long as economics is growth focused and population keeps growing there is nothing to stop collapse except, perhaps, a multitude of crises that impact the very wealthy. Yet that path leads to dictatorship.

    5. Here’s what we need to do to solve this…invest in green energy, stop all oil/fossil fuel subsidies, invest in major green infrastructure, convert public transportation to green energy (along with fundamentally improving it by, for example, building national high speed rail to get from one side of the US to the other without needing a plane), rebates to put solar panels on houses, enforce pollution taxes on businesses that increase until they are at net zero by 2040 and after that zero emissions by 2050, ban banks and corporations from investing in fossil fuel projects, increase electric car chargers, invest in international projects to to the same thing to smaller developing countries, provide millions of good green jobs that pay a living wage, pay off education for anyone in oil companies that would be forced into new careers while giving anyone 50+ in that career early access to social security. Do this and these tipping points and related climate anxiety issues will vanish into ancient history.

      1. Derrick. Best luck with the project.
        I’m glad that such a few simple things will cure all the ‘anxiety issues’.

        Then we can move on to solve the concerns of those without anxiety reaction are focused on.

        1. Derrick’s concerns are wonderful…as long as they are enacted in 1985.

  8. Guys, I have just published another post on my website. It is called “What is Infinity”. A couple of posters have told me I don’t understand infinity. I think the concept is just so damn obvious that almost anyone can understand it. However…

    Check it out at The Fine-Tuned Universe It is a short two minute read.

    I know I said my next post would be on the philosophy of Naturalism, but that is getting to be a greater task than I expected. That will come later.

    Ron

    1. “A Brief History of Infinity” is a good book. I can’t recall any specifics now but I seem to remember the concept of infinity is much more complicated than might be initially thought.

      1. Yes, it is a great book. It is complicated only if you look at every level of infinity. Or more correctly, every set of infinity. However infinity as from zero to infinity, in two directions, negative and positive, is quite simple. It just goes on forever in both directions. Of course, one cannot imagine anything going on forever. However, as a concept, it is just so damn simple. Saying there is a hierarchy of infinities, and there is, doesn’t change the concept that infinity, as numbers or fractions, goes forever in two directions.

        Yes, there are just as many even numbers as numbers. And just as many odd numbers as numbers. There are an infinite number of two-dimensional shapes. And there are an infinite number of three-dimensional shapes. However, the infinite number of three-dimensional shapes is greater than the infinite number of two-dimensional shapes. That is what is meant by “a hierarchy of infinities”. But all this has nothing to do with the way I am using the term.

        I have been reading about infinity for many years. I know exactly what it is. I am using the term correctly.

        1. Hi Ron,

          Your talk about infinity got me thinking about my own pursuit, geophysics. I wonder if this field would even exist without copious use of mathematical infinities. One example that springs to mind: the infinite period Fourier series is our priceless Fourier transform? Cosmological infinities are another matter, obviously.

          1. Doug, thanks for the post. However, I am not a mathematician and therefore not familiar at all with the Fourier Series.

            I can only add that even though infinity comes in sets or a hierarchy, they all are infinitely large. It is impossible to overestimate infinity on any level.

            1. Hi Ron,
              ” It is impossible to overestimate infinity on any level.”
              Think about it.

              “As best I remember, it was more or less accepted as proven that anything that CAN happen WILL happen, given enough trials. Well, no that is not proven. It is only an assumption. How on earth would one prove such a thing. Anyway, that statement is irrelevant because there can never be enough trials.”

              Certainty is defined as ONE, Impossible is defined as zero.
              If the odds of drawing a black marble in a bucket are one in ten, zero point ten,because there are ten marbles, nine white, the odds of drawing a white one are zero point nine.
              The odds of drawing two blacks in a row are point nine times point nine, point eighty one. Three whites in a row….. about point seventy two. Point nine again, the odds of four blacks are about point six.

              At this point, the it’s simple first grade probability to calculate that the odds of getting the black marble in four tries is approximately point four…… forty percent. Eventually the odds of getting the black APPROACH unity, or one. Certainty.

              Incidentally this is chapter one probability theory as taught in major universities.

              You see where this is going?

              AN INFINITY of trials IS possible, given time enough time, not to mention potential ( unknown ) variations of the universe.

              NO MATTER how UNLIKELY it is that the so called tuned universe is an accident, it’s still possible.

              And given enough trials, IF it happens that our ” known universe” is merely one possibility among countless possible OTHER unknown universes, using that confusing meta verse terminology…….. Well, eventually, it would be very likely, as a matter of fact, virtually CERTAIN, to come to pass.

              My reference to black matter is inexplicable even to me. Dark matter it is. I blame it on old age, lol.

              The truth of the matter is that while we know hundreds of times more than we did a few generations back, we still don’t know shit from apple butter about the ultimate nature of reality. We have theories, which will of course continue to be refined, and maybe even tossed out……. THE DATA won’t be tossed out, in that case, it will just be reused as part of new theories.

              Hey…… we’re really a cosmic accident… our universe as we know it is a cosmic accident…. or we can talk about gods.

              I can’t find it, but Twain, the greatest American writer so far, wrote a short piece about a bug that lit on the absolute pinnacle of the Eiffel tower, and looked around, and decided in it’s arrogance that the entire world was created JUST for it’s edification, including of course the tower itself…. so that the bug could enjoy the view from the pinnacle.

            2. Mac, your post is so far off base, and so misunderstands my position that I hardly know where to start. First, let’s deal with your probability example. You deal with ten marbles and the chances of drawing one in ten, four times in a row. Yeah, one ten four times in a row is a virtual certainty if you draw enough times. But Mac, one in infinity is one hardly comparable to one in ten.

              It is said that the number of subatomic particles in the universe is one times 10 to the 80th power. That is one followed by 80 zeros is the number of subatomic particles in the universe. But that is nowhere even remotely close to infinity. But let’s not get even close to infinity, let’s just say there are 10 to the ten trillionth power of marbles. That is one followed by ten trillion zeros. And remember every zero multiplies the number by ten. You are nowhere close to infinity but let’s just go with this number.

              Now you must draw the one black marble from 1 to the ten trillionth white marbles. What are your chances? But wait, that is not enough, you must draw 50 times and get the black marble on every draw. Mac, do you understand the difference between 1 followed by one zero, and the difference between 1 followed by ten trillion zeros? And do you understand that you must draw that dam marble from that number, 1 times 10 to the ten trillionth porer, 50 times without drawing even one white marble?

              Now to your Mark Twain example. And I must tell you Mac, this one really pisses me off. Where, or when, did I ever imply or remotely suggest that the universe was created for US human beings? No, I never have. In fact I have stated the exact opposite.

              There are estimated to be 200 billion trillion stars in the universe. If only one star in every 100 billion stars has a planet capable of allowing life to evolve, then there would still be 2 thousand billion stars capable of supporting life. (2,000,000,000,000)

              Mac, please don’t ever assume that I support such a stupid idea as the: arrogance that the entire world was created JUST for it’s edification, including of course the tower itself…. so that the bug could enjoy the view from the pinnacle.

              That is my main complaint of the Bible Bangers. That is what they assume. And if you had even bothered to read my essays you would know that is the exact opposite of what I profess.

            3. One more thing Mac, you got the Mark Twain story all wrong. It was not a bug on top of the Eiffel Tower, it was the thickness of the paint on top of a flagpole as compared to the height of the flagpole. He was comparing it to the time humans have existed on earth compared to the earth’s age. I remember reading it, I think it was from his book “Letters from the Earth”.

  9. Reply to Nick G (and Hickory)

    “Here’s a map of the projects:
    https://mapservices.pjm.com/renewables/

    2,500 projects! I couldn’t find an estimate of how that compares to the 100GW grid that PJM manages. It’s probably more than is needed: I counted 4 wind projects at 1.5GW each with a very cursory look. That would mean you have to have a very careful research, analysis, forecasting, planning and approval process to support denials (which often generate lawsuits due to the large amounts of money involved).”

    It is a question about cost of electricity. I look at Pennsylvania, and the issue is a bit like in Norway. Land based wind power is cheaper than offshore. To get the most out of it, mountain plateaus get steady winds (especially near the coast or large plains).

    But it is also a question regarding land use and the environment. The problem is that wind mills stretching almost 200 meters above the surface on mountain plateaus are dominating the landscape like nothing else. The opposition against onshore wind in Norway grew immensely the last two years. Probably a way to do it is to overbuild the best areas, but not all. Not even more than a fraction of it. There is a limit to what is tolerated when it comes to building renewable energy (all types), especially considering land use. It also fuels the growing urban/rural conflict. I was driving through an area in Western Norway completely visually destroyed by hydro lakes 20-30 meters below natural, and giant wind mills visible on mountain plateaus. Well, that area was not beautiful any more. Some of those beside still are, due to less renewable energy potential. Overbuilding the “best areas” for energy and leaving a lot of areas alone is the best solution I can see – really.

    So in the end a cost question; how much can be built at a given cost per mwh. And is it even acceptable to do it in the first place.

    1. Even if only a minority of these projects in the pipeline are ‘good ones’ by someones judgement, the point is that a functional system for analysis and sorting and approval of projects is a necessary component of a civilization that would like to adapt to the changing energy and climate situation.
      Keep in mind that these energy project proposals for grid interconnection are not something that companies just throw together on a whim. The lead time for getting all this done is many years.

      Its a broken system, as it now stands.
      Haphazard, poorly managed, low priority, backward focused, simply not up to the task.
      Twenty years behind the curve.

      1. I kind of see where your viewpoints are coming from.

        In China they claim to build a 12 gw high voltage line for 3000 km. That is to connect coal mines producing electricity to the coast. Some others to connect hydro power to the south coast of China. No matter what they actually achieve in the end in China, the US have the potential to connect the east coast offshore power with the interior that has a lot of wind power etc. Through HVDC distance lines using aluminum (displacing other usages).

        It requires a unity and organization to achieve a renewable based grid. Maybe North America is just too big. Sad if that is the case.

        1. It’s much cheaper and easier to build high speed rail and HVDC when you can simply bulldoze all of the villages that are in the way. In the US the planning process, and the change orders, are endless as the developers have to cope with NIMBY and AIMBY (Absolutely In My Back Yard: industries and communities that want the rail etc going past).

          I agree that we need these projects ASAP, but let’s not romanticize dictatorships.

          1. “I agree that we need these projects ASAP, but let’s not romanticize dictatorships.”

            China are just going about it in too high pace. Better to do it lower paced, long term and reasonably.

            1. That makes sense.

              The decision making process is also important. The essence of democracy is a wider circle that participates in decision making. That improves the quality of decision making, both by representing diverse interests and by involving a diverse set of expertise.

              There is a myth that dictators are better decision makers (like Mussoline claming to make the trains run on time). It’s really not true.

      2. a functional system for analysis and sorting and approval of projects is a necessary component of a civilization that would like to adapt to the changing energy and climate situation.

        I agree.

        Keep in mind that these energy project proposals for grid interconnection are not something that companies just throw together on a whim. The lead time for getting all this done is many years.

        I don’t think that’s entirely true. Many of these projects appear to have been placed in the interconnection queue simple as a placeholder, with no permits or financing in place. I’ve seen this before: when backlogs build up, customers start abusing the process with duplicative or low value entries. It’s a bit like hoarding during a shortage: a positive feedback that degrades the system.

        Its a broken system, as it now stands. Haphazard, poorly managed…

        That seems a little harsh – it’s a system that was adequate for most of it’s history.

        low priority, backward focused, simply not up to the task. Twenty years behind the curve.

        I agree: it is a critical function that needs dramatic expansion.

        1. “Its a broken system, as it now stands. Haphazard, poorly managed…
          “That seems a little harsh ”

          And I was trying to be gentle and polite. Oh well.

          1. Well, I agree that something seems badly wrong, but we don’t know what. All we know is that there’s a dramatic backlog – we don’t know why, except that PJM is trying to change the process to allow them to focus on projects that have demonstrated viability: gotten permits, financing, etc.

  10. 897,885 (Hopkins)

    Still below 900,000

    But not tomorrow probably.

  11. Carbon Brief is my favourite climate/ecology site. This is a good summary of the sort of dilemmas facing us:

    DOES RENEWABLE ENERGY THREATEN EFFORTS TO CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY ON LAND?

    “… at other times the crises may seem to antagonise each other: rapid renewable energy expansion is a key part of decarbonising global energy systems, but may take up land precious to the planet’s wildlife.”

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-does-renewable-energy-threaten-efforts-to-conserve-biodiversity-on-land

      1. I agree. On top of the direct climate effects the political impacts will multiply as things deteriorate and resource limits on their own will be damaging. Afghanistan, Yemen, Madagascar, North Korea, Venezuela, Senegal and Ethiopia are showing what can happen even as climate change is just getting started and while there is still some nominal humanitarian aid available (although that is likely to be among the first things to go as local economic problems worsen).

        A threat to Ukrainian wheat seems to be one of the main worries with Putin threatening there (if not now then it will be ever present). Other areas in East Africa, Nigeria, Congo, South American regions, MENA may all be in for near term problems. The UK might be one of the first western countries with major difficulties given how much we import; food banks are pretty active here already and we are about to have the biggest negative impact on cost of living ever since figures started to be recorded.

        Ultimately I think 2.5 to 3 degrees warming will render cereal farming impossible because weather extremes could wipe out harvests (that would already be down 20 to 40% from the average) every 3 years or so, which would make agriculture impossible. That would spell the end of any surviving agrarian civilisations after the global industrial one has gone.

        There’s a scene in Come and See (the greatest anti-war film ever made) where the leading male and female figures leave a deserted village. The female looks back and sees the bodies of the villagers stacked up like logs; their deaths are indirectly the results of the actions of the male character and it is his home village. She doesn’t bring this to his attention and they move on to additional horrors. It’s got nothing much to do with famine but it somehow brings home to me better than anything what probably lies in our collective future.

        1. And yet it seems the paramount concern for many posters on this blog is that, in the West, WE MUST CONTINUE TO DRIVE.

          1. There does seem a disproportionate level of concern and resources given, during this time of mass ecocide/suicide, to keeping the American/Western ass on the road. The alien anthropologist in me finds it all terribly interesting; alas, I am one of the damned.

          2. Keep in mind that transport concerns are applicable to the most basic of human economic functioning- such as getting bushels of grain and goats, etc to market. Whether its in Gambia, the Mekong delta, the Cumberland plateau, or outside Montero Bolivia.
            The small vehicle cargo sector is the one that most interests me.
            Before ICE vehicles it was horse drawn wagons and barges.
            That is an option too.
            But I think many will reach hard for electric wagons/vans/bikes.
            15 miles round trip to market powered by solar panels is going to be an aspiration for a hell of a lot of people.

            1. Most trips are less than a mile or two, and don’t require fossil fuel.

          3. It would be interesting to see a test where people rated the enjoyment they get from driving and the importance they attribute to the freedom and privacy they get from personal vehicles against the ecological and economic benefits of passenger EV developments. My guess is the correlation would be very high.

          4. MikeB,

            So you do not drive?

            Also, it is not a matter of we must drive, simply an expectation that we probably will. Certainly it would be good if there was less consumption of everything, unclear how this is accomplished at wide scale.

    2. I read that link. I think he hit the spot on lumber prices as I buy rather expensive wood for instrument making and those prices, particularly for Canadian Spruce have gone nuts, that is, when there is anything available at all. Lumber prices are truly affected by higher temperatures which have caused unprecedented fires and insect infestations.
      But he’s way off the mark on wheat and corn. Volumes and, more important, yields are up at record levels. I hate it when I’m reading something that conforms to my prejudices and find a glaring error. How much of the rest of his report is as poorly researched? I stopped reading at wheat and corn. I’ve seen the USDA data.

      1. If you are trying to feed a growing population with increasing aspirations to a middle class diet then anything less than a new record harvest every year is a potential crises. Even if production is sufficient unless it’s pattern of production matches the complex, integrated and just-in-time delivery system, and that system is itself not being disrupted, then you have another potential crisis.

        1. Since 1990 global meat consumption has outpaced growth in population.
          If grain supplies/capita fall back, countries will have to scale back the feeding of grain to livestock and rely more on the grazing on lesser quality lands for meat production.
          And the mass scale diversity of croplands to biofuel production will have to be scaled back to favor food production (ex corn in USA as an extreme example of fuel over food on prime cropland)

          Goats and black eyed peas will be assuming a greater role in the places of the world where food has been abundant in the age of fossil fuel.

  14. If anyone wonders why I am a Yellow Dog* Democrat, it is because of the intellect of the average Republican and what they would do if they had absolute power over the laws of our government. The best example of that is below.

    Oklahoma bill would fine teachers $10K for teaching anything that contradicts religion

    Oklahoma state Sen. Rob Standridge, a Republican, has introduced a bill that would allow people to sue teachers if they offer an opposing view toward religious beliefs held by students.

    In the Students’ Religious Belief Protection Act, teachers can be fined a minimum of $10,000 “per incident, per individual,” and the fines have to be paid from personal resources. If the teacher can’t pay the fine, they would be fired under this act, according to The Independent.

    It will also allow parents to demand the removal of any books perceived as anti-religious. This includes topics like evolution, the big bang theory and even birth control.

    Per Forbes, the bill does not specify what “deeply held beliefs” are but it is bound to change how subjects like history, science and health are taught.

    Currently, the bill has no sponsors and has been referred to the Senate Education Committee. If passed, this act, which has been referred to as “necessary for the preservation of the public peace,” will take effect immediately.

    *A Yellow Dog Democrat is someone who would vote for an old yellow dog before they would vote for a Republican.

    1. Yup, providing my belief in Odin, Thor and Frey is respected, why not? But, maybe they should draw a line at snakes and those morons who see cobras, or some other slimy serpent, in some “deeply held” religious context. But wait, don’t Christians do that? As in: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”

    2. Tennessee has lowest vaccination rate and highest book-burning rate——–

  16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvKpnaXYUPU

    There’s a lot of information new to me in this documentary.

    I’m sure most of us have long since heard about the methane being released by thawing permafrost, which in and of itself is a grave concern.

    But there’s now evidence, new to me, in this doc, about methane coming up from thousands of feet down, below the permafrost.

    This portion starts at the thirty two minute mark if you’re in a hurry, but it’s all well worth the time to watch.

  17. NEW RADAR TECHNOLOGY RECORDS ANTARCTIC GLACIERS LOSING ICE FASTER THAN EVER DOCUMENTED BEFORE

    “In a new University of Houston study using an advanced remote imaging system known as synthetic aperture radar interferometry, three glaciers at the South Pole are being documented with levels of clarity and completeness never seen before. The new remote sensing data system is not just uncovering icy secrets from Earth’s least explored continent, it also is raising alarms about global climate risks—both present and future.”

    https://phys.org/news/2022-02-radar-technology-antarctic-glaciers-ice.html

    1. It looks like 2m sea level rise is the minimum we can expect this century and it will likely be in one or two relatively quick jumps. Industrial society may be gone by the time they happen but if there are a couple of billion left they will mostly be living as near the coasts as possible as the centre of land masses will be too hot.

      1. The seas *might* rise two meters by 2100, but I’m willing to offer an even odds bet on that, although we’d necessarily have to find a committee of children to hold the stakes on that until the bet matures. 😉

    1. Yes, I have a comment. The scientists are saying that their new models are predicting a much faster rise in global temperature than their old models did:

      In an independent assessment of 39 global-climate models last year, scientists found that 13 of the new models produced significantly higher estimates of the global temperatures caused by rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide than the older computer models—scientists called them the “wolf pack.” Weighed against historical evidence of temperature changes, those estimates were deemed unrealistic.

      And the last paragraph:

      “I think the climate models are the best tool we have to understand the future, even though they are far from perfect,” said Dr. Gettelman. “I’m not worried that the new models might be wrong. What scares me is that they might be right.”

  20. In general republicans have demonstrated an incredible level of resistance against public health measures to limit the pandemic, and over the past year have dominated the ICU’s with endotracheal tubes down their throats and tubes up there ying yang into the bladder, as a show of resistance to science, democracy and the common good.
    A strong show of willful and belligerent ignorance- its the tribal calling card.

    And now the pandemic may be in the early phase of becoming a much lower level concern.
    And i wonder what will be the new focus of nationalist, white supremacist and fundamentalist angst.

    Of course it may resort to issues of racism and immigration, or anti-urbanism or intellectualism.
    But I suggest a possible new target- ‘green’ policy.
    We already see people on the other thread constantly calling ESG policy a ‘scam’, as an example of this.
    They seek to blame oil depletion on ESG policies.
    There are many such examples brewing in the nation.
    Trump got cheers at his rallies when he declaring that the ‘noise from windmills causes cancer’.
    Watch out. This will muddy up the waters on energy adaptation and climate change much more than it already is.
    Culture war it is, and political violence has been normalized. Fundamentalists and fascists are all on board.

  21. From the FT:
    https://www.ft.com/content/75496422-be4b-48e9-b445-d987813a126f

    European scientists in ‘landmark’ nuclear fusion breakthrough
    Experiment at UK’s JET facility boosts hope that clean power source could soon be harnessed commercially

    Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
    https://www.ft.com/content/75496422-be4b-48e9-b445-d987813a126f

    European scientists have set a new record for the most energy to be generated from nuclear fusion, the latest breakthrough in a decades-long effort to produce power by harnessing the reaction that powers the sun.

    A team of researchers from the Eurofusion consortium produced 59 megajoules from a sustained reaction lasting five seconds — enough power to boil about 60 kettles — in an experiment at the Joint European Torus facility in Oxford, England.

    “These landmark results have taken us a huge step closer to conquering one of the biggest scientific and engineering challenges of them all,” said Ian Chapman, chief executive of the UK’s Atomic Energy Authority.

    JET, a collaboration between EU member states, Switzerland, the UK and Ukraine, founded in 1978, is the world’s largest, most powerful operational “tokamak” machine. The design, pioneered by Soviet scientists in the 1950s, uses powerful magnets to hold a plasma of two hydrogen isotopes — deuterium and tritium — in place as it is heated to temperatures hotter than the sun so that the atomic nuclei fuse, releasing energy.

    In half a century of experiments around the world scientists have been unable to generate more energy from a fusion reaction than the power-intensive system consumes.

    There is more but this should be sufficient to find the article.
    There seems to be (finally) a lot of process in the fusion world. China had a sustained fusion reaction of over 15 minutes and now one in Europe that produces a fair bit of energy. Things are moving in the right direction.
    rgds
    WP

Comments are closed.