111 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, April 1, 2022”

  1. Only a comedian can do this . Firing your General’s in midst of a war , but then Zelensky is a comedian . Not surprising since his advisors are another bunch of comedians (NATO) who lost in Iraq and ran with the tail between their legs in Afghanistan . The Afghanis were wearing sandals and using .22 rifles . Terrific for raising the morale of the troops . 🙂 The clowns are in town , enjoy the circus .
    https://www.zerohedge.com/military/zelensky-dismisses-two-his-top-generals-being-traitors
    P.S ; Hicks you are a broken record and boring . I don’t play victim . Your crap is like water off a duck’s back for me . Advice ” Can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen “

    1. HOH,
      Get yours out of your backside.

      I don’t have the details, but it’s very well understood that there are some bad apples in every barrel, and in a situation wherein the enemy has been working very hard for years and years to undermine the legitimate government, well….

      It would be a miracle if there weren’t a few generals in need of firing….. if not for incompetence then in need of criminal trial for corruption or treason.

      We’ve just recently had one of that sort at the very top level as the go to man to TFG who himself is headed for prison unless our own REAL nazi party manages to keep him out of jail. OUR nazis succeeded in keeping him in power thru two impeachments.

      Flynn, if I remember correctly.

      You’re making a fool of yourself, to put it mildly.

      Russia,or rather the Russian government, is the problem. Period.

      This is not to say that other countries haven’t made some serious mistakes.

      The Russian people are not to blame, to any real extent, because they’ve been brainwashed by their fascist government to the point they really do fear the West, as best I can judge.

      Brainwashing people when you control the media isn’t at all hard.

      Our own fucking fascist party has succeeded in brainwashing half of my own country…… the half with next to nothing in the way of a real education for the most part of course.

      And here in the USA, the fascists control no more than half of the media.

      Hickory has forgotten more than you will ever know if you live to be a hundred.

      1. OFM , yes you are right about the bad apples stuff . However you don’t fire General’s in a middle of a war . Switching horses during a race is not a good idea . You don’t fire them , you send them to the frontlines to get killed either by the enemy or by friendly fire if need be . Now who said this ? I think it was Napoleon but I could be wrong .

        1. HiH do you have any real familiarity with history at all? Take some time to read about the Generals in the US civil war, for one example.
          Let me give you some unvarnished feedback: your posts tend to be transparently slanted polemics.

        2. “However you don’t fire General’s in a middle of a war ”

          Of course generals who are lame, or are ineffectual or are not trustworthy
          are removed as quickly as possible.
          Ridiculous and childish thinking to suggest otherwise. Par for the course with HinH.

          Not sure what his ultimate goal is – flooding the PeakOilBarrel threads with such monkeyshit. It surely seems like some sort of campaign.

          1. Hicks , now that we know where the lines are drawn . Let us get cracking . You don’t fire Generals , you transfer them as Napoleon said or demote them , that is transfer them to another theatre of war where they are useless . You only fire them in case of insubordination . See Macarthur vs Truman . See link below . Generals are never fired that is extreme . Westmoreland who was a failure in the Vietnam war was not fired . He did his full term . Firing a General is bad for morale . Winston Churchill’s disastrous failure in the ” Battle of Gallipoli ” did not lead to his dismissal . ANZI’S till this date have no affection for Churchill because the majority killed were from Australia and New Zealand . Now to continue who were the two Generals fired ? They were the head of the SBU and deputy head of SBU . What is SBU ? SBU = CIA . Zelensky proclaims these are traitors in his dismissal . Head of SBU (CIA) and his deputy are traitors ? Who appointed them ? Mr Zelensky you did as a quid pro quo for helping in winning the election against Poroshonko . Read some military history , it will be helpful . Regarding the Russian people at 9:00 minutes . I stopped when I saw Christiana Amana pour a certified warmonger and neo con was the anchor . Putin has a popularity rating of 75% compared to 39 % of Biden . So Mr. Ackerman suck up . Your 5 tours to Iraq only means you are another idiot compared to Scott Ritter who sacrificed every thing for the truth .
            Mr. ELKAL , first time poster . Sorry I do not go back to the civil war . The civil war was minus air force and navy warfare . I do study a little of modern warfare after WWII ( I am no expert ) . By your analogy why not go back to ” 300 Spartans ” . Good for a movie . This is 2022 . Stop dreaming .
            https://www.amazon.com/Truman-Fires-MacArthur-ebook-excerpt-ebook/dp/B003TWONKY

          2. It’s obviously a campaign and has been for months. He/she has been claiming that the sky is falling and everything is shit except Putin, in every post the whole time. I’ve pointed this out several times.

            Also, based on language, I doubt he/she is Indian. Likely French or Belgian with an interest in India.

            1. Alim , what is new ? Regulars here know I am of Indian origin who lived in Hungary from 1992 -2009 and now live in Belgium . Nothing to hide here and that has got nothing to do with the content I post . Just for your info I send a regular part of my income to support social media platforms that are fighting the current ” hindutava fascist ” Modi government in India .

        3. “However you don’t fire General’s in a middle of a war ”

          Generals get fired in the midst of war often enough. In Vietnam, Harkins and Westmoreland were pushed out. In Iraq, General George Casey was yanked from command before he expected to leave. And in Afghanistan, President Obama fired both General David McKiernan and General Stanley McChrystal. I could go on and include Generals in other armies too if anyones curios to know.

          When standards are not rigorously upheld and inadequate performance is allowed to endure in leadership ranks, the effect is not only to rob an enterprise of some of its potential. It is to lose the standards themselves and let the most important capabilities of leadership succumb to atrophy.

          1. Survivalist . You are confirming just what I said .
            General’s Harkins, Casey , Westmoreland and Mckiernan served their full term . They were assigned to a different theatre of war just as I said ( your equivalent pushed aside ) . They were not FIRED and called TRAITORS . They retired with full pensions and benefits .
            As to McChrystal he was a subject of insubordination call because “However, following unflattering remarks about Vice President Joe Biden and other administration officials[9] attributed to McChrystal and his aides in a Rolling Stone article,[10] ” . He was recalled and given a choice , resign or be fired . He chose the first saving embarrassment to the Pentagon and WH . He did not loose any benefits on his resignation .

            1. I lost the plot; is Ukraine bad because they have a couple of traitor Generals, or because they caught them and charged them? It’s all rather unremarkable in the big scheme. Run of the mill stuff. I wouldn’t be surprised if a few officers on all sides are shot for various offenses.

        4. Regarding firing generals in the middle of a war, you might want to read a good history of WWII

  3. https://electrek.co/2022/03/28/could-this-idea-win-over-nimbys-who-oppose-living-near-renewables/

    Maybe people who want to build wind and solar farms here in the USA should create free lotteries…… the cost of signing up being just to fill out the entry online or by mail, stating name and address and having an account with an electricity utility……..

    The prize being that if you win, you get free electricity ….. one free account for each specified number of entries posted from addresses within a certain distance of the proposed site……

    I’m thinking the distance rule could be any place within the state.

    Whether such a strategy could be implemented is utterly beyond my pay grade, since I’m not a lawyer….. but it might help just to propose it.

    1. Even better would be a mechanism to give all locals a financial incentive in the local production. Some sort of option in an ownership fraction or a longterm discount if you are in within a certain distance.
      Same goes for nucs too- a much juicier and bigger plume of incentive would be necessary.

  4. I would like to re-iterate a link provided by Survivalist late last thread-

    “Elliot Ackerman: Ukraine has a three-to-one advantage.’

    https://youtu.be/7INXXYKr-fk

    Very good discussion, and I was interested to hear a topic starting at 9 minutes about Russian people and leadership. Hadn’t thought about that before.

    1. “I don’t make the news only report it”

      You usually throw in stupid opinion. What a complete waste of free speech.

      1. And stupidly not raising water prices.

        At the risk of repeating myself, there’d be a lot more water in those hills if the hadn’t exterminated the beavers.

    1. OR
      Maybe this:
      How long will the coal and gas industries have the political capital necessary to slow or even halt ( in some places) the growth of the wind and solar industries?

      1. It’s especially problematic for those industries because renewables drain profits out of the industry, so they have less money to bribe politicians. Or lobby as we say in polite society.

    2. How fast will the Wind/solar production climb to match the declining Coal/Oil output to halt the rising Death by Freezing/Starving rate?

      Still, very impressive. Did anyone seriously believe in 2008 that this Shit-Show of a civilization would still be standing? When people lament about things like Trump or Biden, it honestly makes me laugh, these guys are the warm-up acts.

  10. The Atlantic in my own estimation, and that of just about every truly literate person known to me, is one of our very best magazines.

    I tremble for the future of not only my own country but the world as a whole when I read such shit as this.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/03/american-population-growth-rate-slow/629392/

    There isn’t even a hint it it, at all, that the author, or editors who approved it, knows anything at all about the implications of continued population growth.

      1. “ Turkey, Tunisia, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya and others that also import the majority of their oil and gas as well as basic foodstuffs, such as wheat and corn, which have all soared between 25% and 40% this year, have also been facing heavy pressure.”

        It’s a bad idea to be dependent on imported oil and gas. Countries that have made the mistake of subsidizing low prices will have worse problems.

        Oil and gas are unreliable energy sources…

    2. OFM,

      I think the author is concerned with shrinking population in the US, which if current trends continue will be happening fairly soon.

      I do think World population needs to shrink, but it will create challenges as economic growth may tend to slow down and taking care of an aging population will be more of a challenge as the young part of the population becomes relatively small by historical standards.

      1. Hi Dennis,

        I’m well aware of the conventional thinking which runs to the effect that we need an ever larger population to support the old folks, etc, and to keep the wheels of industry and commerce spinning.

        And the arguments to this effect are profound and powerful…. so long as you assume the environment can support such growth.

        My personal belief is that we should aim for a shrinking population, and make it work by revising the day to day rules or laws of commerce so that it can work.

        We won’t need a lot of new houses if the population is falling because the younger people will be inheriting older houses…… and it’s not the BUILDING of houses that’s the purpose of houses…. the purpose of a house is to LIVE in it.

        Construction guys can find work upgrading old houses, building new wind and solar farms, etc…

        And if we need less workers…… well, we can shorten the work week so that everybody can work and live.

        1. A shrinking population is a problem. An unsustainable growing one is a catastrophe. Sadly we are evolutionary programmed to maximize our numbers even though the illusion of choice still remains intact but a look at our history clearly proves our trajectory. The consequence of overshoot is collapse.

        2. OFM,

          I think a drop in population is a good idea, but too rapid a drop will make things difficult, the author seemed to be suggesting population stability would be a good idea, the concern was over a drop in population as I read it.

      2. The primary focus of this article is immigration. Immigration has been demonized by fascist “populists” to amp up divisive fear and anger, and US immigration policies are bad for everyone, especially working class folks who have to compete with immigrants whose wages have been driven down by being made “illegal”:

        “Some of this reduction is a result of economic factors; immigration from Latin America has slowed as those economies have grown. Some of it is epidemiological; immigration declined around the world because of COVID lockdowns. But much of this is an American policy choice. The Trump administration worked to constrain not only illegal immigration but also legal immigration. And the Biden administration has not prioritized the revitalization of pro-immigration policy, perhaps because of fears of a xenophobic backlash from the center and right.

        America’s bias against immigration is self-defeating in almost every dimension. “Immigration is a geopolitical cheat code for the U.S.,” says Caleb Watney, a co-founder of the Institute for Progress, a new think tank in Washington, D.C. “Want to supercharge science? Immigrants bring breakthroughs, patents, and Nobel Prizes in droves. Want to stay ahead of China? Immigrants drive progress in semiconductors, AI, and quantum computing. Want to make America more dynamic? Immigrants launch nearly 50 percent of U.S. billion-dollar start-ups. The rest of the world is begging international talent to come to their shores while we are slamming the door in their face.””

        1. Immigration has gone done quite dramatically over the last four years. The labor market is tight and wages are finally increasing. Be nice if it weren’t true, but it is. The capitalists love to have surplus labor so they can keep wages low.

          1. Yes, surplus labor does help keep wages low, but it’s especially helpful when that surplus labor can’t unionize or even demand minimum wage without getting deported.

          2. “The capitalists love to have surplus labor so they can keep wages low.”

            Same with communists.

    3. It is a quandary of the highest order.
      On one hand we are aware of the gross human population overshoot and the need to downsize fast voluntarily before it happens to us the hard (mass death) way, and oh by the way- we are destroying the biosphere.
      Its very inconvenient reality so much of the culture/media has an unspoken agreement to avoid the topic.
      Bad for advertising, bad for keeping the author on the readers favorite list.
      Won’t get you elected.
      Won’t keep the pews filled.

      On the other hand the human human enterprise is geared on perpetual growth. There is no recipe for voluntary downsizing. That is because all scenarios for downsizing are catastrophic to those currently alive.
      (If I have this wrong- please explain in laymans terms. Thanks in advance).

      So, if you are concerned about economic growth and things like employment levels, debt service, credit worthiness, competitiveness, velocity of money, dependency ratios, labor participation ratio, stable government and other such niceties, then population growth via fertility or more generous immigration policy is your best tool to keep the ball rolling.

      But keeping the ball rolling is just making the approaching cliff steeper .
      Biggest quandary there is, as I see it.

      At the level of individuals- I know of only a small number of people who have voluntarily down-scaled their living in a big way because of their concerns about overshoot or associated problems.

      1. the human human enterprise is geared on perpetual growth.

        This is an urban legend. First of all, growth doesn’t have to involve more “stuff” that consume more commodities that require extraction: US car sales, home sales, appliance sales, steel sales, etc have all levelled off decades ago. People really do get to a point of having enough “stuff”. Growth now means higher quality stuff (cars get antilock brakes, automatic safety braking, etc., etc) and more services.

        2nd, modern economies don’t require growth, they just prefer it, because “growth” generally is interpreted as meaning improvement in one’s life. But there’s nothing in the structure of modern economies (growth of credit, etc) that requires it forever. Look at Japan in the last 20 years – no growth. Japanese aren’t happy about it, but the economy isn’t collapsing, just…stagnating.

        Also, eventually people will realize that there’s a limit to what external things can do for happiness, but that’s another discussion.

        1. Nick- I’d like to know which countries have atleast 3 years declining GDP

          Japan GDP average annual growth rate 1980-2021 was 1.10%/yr
          Ask them just how happy hunky dory things would have been at -1.10%/yr

          And Japan is not a good example to base generalizations for the world on, since they entered their slow phase situation with outstanding credit and a very high national savings rate. Also the past 20 years has been a period of easy/cheap access to energy for those who have money. That will no longer be the case.

          I think you are doing your best to put a smiley face on the situation.
          I understand. Its impossible to digest the ramifications of overshoot for most people.
          Denial is the common reaction.
          We all try hard to stay in that frame of mind.

          1. No, I agree: no one will be happy with declining GDP.

            That’s not what I was discussing: I was replying to your thought about whether the human enterprise depends on perpetual growth. That’s a whole different discussion.

            ————————————

            By the way, I think your comments would be better received if you were to drop the assumption that you know a lot more than others. It comes across as condescending, especially to those of us who really do! 🙂

            1. Nick, I generally like your comments. But your last paragraph here saddens me. Please don’t repeat it…

            2. John,

              Yeah, I was afraid that the attempt at humor wouldn’t work. Humor, irony…all are difficult to pull off online.

          2. Hickory,

            Japan has slow to no population growth, from 2000 to 2019 their growth in real GDP per capita was about 0.7%, France had growth in real GDP per capita of 0.6% over same period. For the World the growth rate in real GDP per capita from 2000 to 2019 was 1.77%. The average annual rate of growth in real GDP per capita for high income countries (as defined by World Bank) from 2000 to 2019 was 1.1%, high income nations tend to grow more slowly, though France and Japan grew very slowly over this period.

            Data from

            https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD

            1. Hickory,

              There is not likely to be a shortage of energy, there will be high prices for fossil fuel and societies will gradually move to other energy sources, the higher the price of fossil fuel, the more quickly this transition to other forms of energy (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear energy) is likely to occur.

            2. That is a very optimistic statement Dennis.
              ‘unlikely to be a shortage of energy…’

              If so, a much bigger population of humans can be sustained for longer.
              Energy for carbon capture, water desalinization, hydrogen energy economy (inefficient thermodynamics), and food production could help with many impediments to population growth.

              I am no research expert on energy, just another person who has read and listened to many sources, so of course my summary of the status could be all wrong.
              Despite that possibility, I do think energy shortage is likely.
              Peak Combustion will be in the next 20 years-
              (and it will be getting much hotter).
              Some people/regions/countries will not be faced with energy (food) poverty in that timeframe, but many will.
              No idea how many or what proportion. But it will be a big deal.

              In the meantime, the people and regions that can build as much non fossil energy as possible in this decade, and make big changes to live with much much less fossil energy will have the best chance for gradual transition to the time of peak population.
              I think we are in complete agreement on that.

            3. Hickory,

              Note that no shortage of energy assumes prices are determined by market forces so that demand adjusts to available supply, it does not preclude high fossil fuel prices and a tight market where some uses of fossil fuels are curtailed by becoming more efficient and wasting less energy and some energy use moves to non-fossil fuel energy.

              I believe fossil fuel will deplete more slowly tahn many at this blog believe and that non-fossil fuel energy (particularly wind and solar) will expand much more quickly than some believe. The combination of these two factors may make peak fossil fuels a non-event where supply decreases in part because demand may decrease faster than available supply in a high fossil fuel price environment.

              The falling price of fossil fuel when peak demand becomes a problem should be met with an increase in carbon taxes or fees in order to keep up momentum in moving to non-fossil fuel energy sources and to minimize environmental destruction.

      2. There is no recipe for voluntary downsizing.

        Of course, because it makes no sense. Do we want to prevent climate change? We should downsize our GHG emissions, mostly carbon. But the folks from the oil industry we see in POB aren’t comfortable about that, so they distract us with red herrings, like population, and other environmental problems.

        Do we want to prevent species extinctions? Well, we need to stop killing wild animals and destroying their habitat. That’s the direct approach. It would take an enormous educational effort, but it could be done without “downsizing” the economy: just stop killing things and paving their habitat. That’s what big cities are for: keeping humans away from wild things and their habitat.

        But talk about downsizing the economy? That’s pointless, but it has the benefit of shutting down the discussion and discrediting environmentalists: all good if what you really want is to continue BAU for the fossil industries.

        1. Nick, I don’t think you understand (or want to accept) just how linked the 8 billion+ population size is to the consumption of energy, or how dramatic the down-slope of the carbon energy pulse will be on modern civilization.
          But you are like the vast majority in this regard- plenty of company.

          The downsizing will be forced, not voluntary or managed.

          1. Ah, ok, this brings us back to the basic question of whether fossil fuel energy is the only kind of energy that will support human prosperity. This is a very big and complex discussion, but you mentioned a “carbon pulse”, so that might be a good place to start.

            So, are you arguing that fossil fuels are an enormous one-time legacy of energy that wind and solar aren’t large enough to replace? In other words, do you feel that wind and solar don’t “scale up”?

            2. Edgy,

              Yes, oddly enough, the same topics come up over and over again. Sometimes its because people come and go, but mostly its because we start discussing it and we don’t finish. We go off on tangents, people interrupt. Somehow we don’t keep focused and don’t finish a productive, step by step development of the topic.

              Frustrating…

            3. do you feel that wind and solar don’t “scale up”? ~ Nick

              Yes. We feel that wind and solar don’t scale up. Duh lol.

            4. Survivalist,

              Good, that’s a start to a conversation with you. OTOH, that’s a diversion from this conversation with Hickory. He has his own opinions which may differ, and I think it makes sense to let him answer for himself so we can have a coherent discussion.

            5. ” In other words, do you feel that wind and solar don’t “scale up”?

              Hi Nick.
              Wind and Solar and Hydro and Geothermal, Wave and ?Nucs
              could theoretically be scaled up to produce lots of energy,

              How fast and how much is an unknowable question, since in this real world we won’t get close to the scale it will take to keep the 9 billion we are on the verge of being well enough supplied to maintain.
              From what i have seen, we won’t get anywhere close to testing the theoretical capability.
              Rough guess is that we will be “lucky’ to stabilize population at 4 billion temporarily on the way down, but i think that is wildly ‘optimistic’. This is regarding energy and is not a consideration of the various other big constraints.

              A similar line of thinking can be applied to human nature/behavior. You have mentioned many times how people could conduct themselves differently/better.
              With the idea that constraints will be less and overshoot will be less of a severe issue.
              [example- 90% reduction in animal tissues as food]
              Theoretically yes, people could voluntarily live very small and be thoughtful, wise and considerate of nature and neighbors. As I see it, this would make a managed retreat less chaotic and painful, but it would not negate the basic problem of vast overshoot And I will not spend much time idealizing the possibility. i have seen human nature. There is a some admirable stuff, but it is not the dominant theme.

              But hey- keep dreaming if that works for you.
              If you don’t mind, I’d be curious to know the area of your professional expertise or training. I sense that it is a very sector than mine, as if we see a similar scene through very different lens.

            6. Hickory,

              The problem as I see it is too much fossil fuel rather than not enough from an environmental perspective, higher prices for fossil fuel due to resource constraints is what is needed to move society towards less destructive types of energy. Why do you believe that wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear energy cannot be scaled up?

              Solar and wind consumption have been growing at 29% and 14% per year respectively for the 2011 to 2019 period.

              If growth of wind and solar continues at these rates (growth rates are likely to slow over time) 60% of electricity generation is supplied by wind and solar by 2031 and 90% by 2033, continue growth beyond 2033 may drive electricity prices much lower so that most heating of buildings and water would be with heat pumps (ground source in very cold climates). Demand for oil can be cut in half by 2047, based on land transport shifting to EVs, more can be accomplished with water and air transport (I have modelled no change in these sectors), also some transport especially long haul could move to electrified rail.

              I agree with the sentiment that the task is big and will be difficult, rather than claim it can’t be done (your assumption). I would suggest we get to work and solve the problem.

  11. Art Berman–

    You are my hero. I just saw your HGSGeo presentation and your talk with Nate Hagens. You are clear, direct and devastating. Thanks for delivering the news in your inimitable way.

    1. I love Art & Nate. Please post here any hot links you come across.

  12. Russia lost a lot of good airborne officers.

    https://youtu.be/chwUmbOTjPU

    YouTube/BBC video says 331 is down by a 3rd. 331 is 3 battalions, so it’s down a battalion… about 1500 soldiers from “the best of the best”. I’ve heard lots of Majors and Colonels died with their men.

    https://rb.gy/pbzkli

    As well, Russian Major General Andrey Sukhovetsky was killed by sniper fire from 1500 meters, which indicates some very good intelligence and coordination.

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

    Russian soldiers eventually retook the airport but before they could it was cratered from end to end by Ukraine’s combat engineers, who are likely now repairing it as it’s back in Ukrainian hands as Russia has withdrawn from the airport.

    1. Yeah the 331st Airborne was supposed to be Russia’s most elite regiment. They were sent in to be part of the triumph in Kyiv.

      The Ukrainians claim they kill all of them, down to the last man, but that hasn’t been confirmed.

  13. The situation in China continues to deteriorate. Jilin has been locked down for close to a month and Omicron infections are still rising. Same scenario in Shanghai. People aren’t even allowed to walk their dogs, and if someone in the household tests positive, they kill all your pets. If your child tests positive and you don’t, they take your child. No one in China apparently has been informed that the Omicron variant is less severe. China is turning into a hellhole. I expect this to continue for another month or two until they finally capitulate and let the virus run wild. The consequences will be dire in terms of deaths and economically. Their homegrown vaccine hardly works against Omicron and many seniors are either not vaccinated at all, have not had a booster, or were vaccinated quite some time ago at this point. The over 65 population in China is several hundred million. This will dominate the news for the next few months and likely drive oil prices down significantly.

  14. WHY WIDESPREAD SEXUAL VIOLENCE IS LIKELY IN UKRAINE
    https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2022/04/06/why-widespread-sexual-violence-is-likely-in-ukraine/

    Why isn’t China going all out to help Russia in Ukraine?
    “It appears that Beijing and Moscow’s recently declared ‘no limits’ partnership has a few limits.”
    https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/04/04/why-isnt-china-going-all-out-to-help-russia-in-ukraine/

    Egypt’s wheat imports from Russia rose in March despite war
    “Imports from Russia up 24 percent year-on-year as Egypt still favours superior grain despite supply disruption”
    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/egypt-wheat-imports-russia-rose-march-despite-war

  15. Coal is dead you say. Well, apparently Australia didn’t get the memo. 😉

    COAL EXPORTS FORECAST TO SMASH RECORD WITH VALUE SET TO BREAK $100 BILLION THIS FINANCIAL YEAR

    “Australian coal is set to become the second commodity ever [after iron ore] to crack $100 billion in annual exports, according to the latest Resources and Energy Quarterly report from the federal government.”

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-04/australian-coal-exports-to-break-record/100964414

    1. Fans of fossil fuel seems to think that oil can’t be replaced, but the basic tech for synthetic liquid fuel has been around for a long time: it’s really basic chemistry. Fossil fuels are just hydrocarbons, and hydrogen and carbon are abundant.

      Creating synthetic liquid fuels certainly requires an energy input. If it comes from electricity you’d probably need about 100kWhs to create a gallon of fuel at 40kWh (40% efficiency from end to end). At current industrial prices that’s about $6 for the energy input, which suggests that liquid fuel would cost around $7-10 per gallon (or about $2/liter), all in all. But…wind and solar power are cheap, and they’re extremely likely to be overbuilt and produce very large amounts of surplus, almost free power on off-peak hours. That’s likely to reduce the cost of fuel to around $4-5.

      But let’s be serious: even $8 fuel wouldn’t cause the collapse of civilization, especially because most uses of liquid fuel can be replaced by electricity directly, with no need for an inefficient conversion to liquid fuel.

      1. Nick, in this next decade or two
        the worlds people will be spending a huge amount of money on
        oil, nat gas and coal just to keep the mechanisms of civilization running , like food production, HVAC, etc.
        And yet the amount of capital required to build out the massive new energy systems will be enormous.
        Scale of the funding required is hard to fathom.

        I raise this as a huge constraint to getting the job accomplished. It is only a very small portion of the worlds people, communities, companies states or countries that will be able able to come with the funding in a timeframe quick enough to avoid suffering energy poverty. And then it will be too late to afford much of it at all.
        Think that part through.

        1. Hickory,

          The huge amount of money spent extracting, refining , and distributing coal, oil, and natural gas will be reduced over time as demand for these resources starts to fall, that capital can move to wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear power, as well as EVs and batteries. The high price of fossil fuel will reduce demand for those fuels and increase demand for cheaper alternatives such as wind, solar, EVs, etc. There will be bumps in the road no doubt, better government policies to guide the transition would help to reduce the speed bumps along the way. Allocation of capital simply based on free market principles is most efficient in theory, but that Walrasian theory is based on a set of assumptions that do not hold (not even close) in the real world so some government “interference” in the idealized “free market” that exists only in textbooks is needed.

          Europe is likely to get this better than the US, especially Northern Europe. Hopefully they will continue to lead by example and the US will follow. Winston Churchill blithely stated:

          You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.

          Perhaps he will be proven correct.

          1. Dennis-
            “The huge amount of money spent extracting, refining , and distributing coal, oil, and natural gas will be reduced over time as demand for these resources starts to fall”

            Not so sure about that. Over the next decade or two the money of 9 billion will be chasing fossil energy that is more and more expensive. The kind of price action that we see in Europe this season is a compressed glimpse of the scenario that will likely play out.

            Yet this is exactly the same timeframe that capital needs to be going to fund non-fossil energy development.
            I am skeptical that both of these expense pathways will or can be handled simultaneously.

            Some countries may surprise on the upside.
            Can UK build enough wind and nuc’s in a short time?
            What will Germany, Japan, S.Korea do to get by with less energy without depressing the economies?
            And what of the dozens of fossil importing countries without such big export earning economies (VietNam, India, Spain, Eqypt, Turkey- population of just these 5 countries over 1.7B)?

            1. Hickory,

              The high prices will encourage both higher output (supply) and lower consumption (demand) as substitutes for fossil fuel will see increased use which will encourage their development. The only question is how quickly the transition occurs which depends in part on how high fossil fuel prices increase and whether the supply and demand reaction will be large enough to bring fossil fuel prices lower. I think not until about 2030 to 2035 for oil, I have focused less on natural gas and coal so I am less sure about when demand for those fuels might fall below supply and bring long term prices down.

              There will be adequate supply when the Russian invasion of Ukraine gets settled, though the flows of Russian energy exports may be different after the dust settles.

              Those nations highly dependent on imports of fossil fuels may move aggressively to develop alternatives to fossil fuel, or would be wise to do so.

            2. Krugman on Germany’s unwillingness to reduce Russian natural gas imports.

              https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/08/opinion/russian-gas-germany-acid-rain.html

              link above for NYTimes subscribers

              below has article minus images (images show acid rain problem was nearly eliminated by changes in policy with falling electricity prices, the reverse of what was claimed by the electric power industry).

              https://smartagain.org/2022/04/08/wonking-out-russian-gas-acid-rain-and-industrial-scaremongers/

              Bottom line, listen to economists rather than businessmen when developing policy.

              See the following for the advice of German Economists (a paper by 9 of them)

              https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/paul-krugman-can-germany-break-up-with-russian-gas/ar-AAVfl20

  20. Not good.

    METHANE EMISSIONS BREAK RECORD FOR SECOND CONSECUTIVE YEAR

    “Methane emissions worldwide spiked in 2021 and broke the record set the previous year, according to data released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A preliminary analysis from NOAA indicated that measured atmospheric methane increased by 17 parts per billion (ppb) last year, surpassing the 15.3 ppb increase in 2020…

    The report showed that levels of carbon dioxide also continued to increase rapidly, with the global surface average for carbon dioxide during 2021 at 414.7 parts per million (ppm), an increase of 2.66 ppm over the 2020 average.”

    https://phys.org/news/2022-04-atmospheric-methane-noaa.html

    1. And, perhaps unsurprisingly.

      THE WORLD IS ‘PERILOUSLY CLOSE’ TO IRREVERSIBLE CLIMATE CHANGE.

      “Five years ago, the United Nations’ panel on climate change was charged with drafting a series of reports detailing its science, the effects on the planet and how humanity might save itself. The last of those reports arrived this week, and the news is dire. The world’s scientists say the crisis is upon us, and unless we act now, multiple crucial planetary systems are on the cusp of permanent damage.”

      https://phys.org/news/2022-04-world-perilously-irreversible-climate-scientists.html

  21. INTO THE ICE REVIEW: AN UNMISSABLE LOOK AT GREENLAND’S MELTING ICE

    “Towards the end of the film, Box and Hubbard head back into the deep crevasse to resume their work, only to discover an uncomfortable truth: the meltwater under the ice has progressed to a level never seen before. The glaciers are melting at a faster pace than we thought and our predictions of sea level rise are probably too cautious.”

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25433812-300-into-the-ice-review-an-unmissable-look-at-greenlands-melting-ice/

  22. The FAO Food Price Index at another all-time high in March. Up 34% from a year ago.

    1. Looks like the biggest monthly increase recorded so far and inflation adjusted the level is now equivalent to the 130 seen when the Arab spring and similar unrest kicked off. I can’t see the index declining in unless oil price completely collapses through a recession and even that might not be enough (the historical 98% correlation between oil price and the index has now broken down by as much as we’ve ever seen). I’ve seen predictions that serious food shortages will start in 3Q and without Russian and Ukrainian grain and fertilizers we can only feed 6 to 7 billion with our current global set up – and that is before allowing for any additional disruptions to this years harvest due to droughts, floods and heatwaves, with droughts already in evidence in some key food producing areas.

    2. As usual the low and middle class will be hit the hardest as a result of this.

      1. Hi , iron Mike . Absolutely correct . Darwin’s ” Survival of the fittest ” prevails when it comes to selection , just like the laws of thermodynamics in Physics . Immutable . Bad news but beyond the control of us humans .

        1. I’ve often noted that “fitness” is not well correlated with wealth class, especially in cases of generational wealth. Perhaps when the poorer classes get a bit more assertive we shall see a fitness hierarchy of a different sort; nothing worse than looking wealthy & weak when things get dire.

          Why rich people tend to think they deserve their money
          https://www.marketplace.org/2021/01/19/why-rich-people-tend-think-they-deserve-their-money/

          The Unabomber’s philosophy gets 4 1\2 stars on Amazon.
          I recommend avoiding ostentations displays of wealth.

          https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Ted-Kaczynski-Unabomber-Technology-ebook/dp/B07VBW7XLK

        2. Hole in head,

          Nonsense. I am surprised that Ron didn’t comment on this.

          Social “Darwinism” has nothing to do with the Origin of Species. Humans are all of the same species.

          Racists claim otherwise, but unscientific claims most of us ignore.

          You are treading on thin ice with that comment.

          1. I agree, Dennis. I missed it because HinH posts so much I seldom read any of them. Also, I am very busy with another project, so I skip over many posts. I have no idea what he is driving at.

            Though Darwin did use the term “Survival of the Fittest” in the fifth edition of his opus “On the Origin of Species,” he did not coin the term. That was done in 1864 by Herbert Spencer.
            The Complicated Legacy of Herbert Spencer, the Man Who Coined ‘Survival of the Fittest’

            Spencer was the originator of “Social Darwinism”, which was all about class and class struggle. However, I agree with Robert Wright who said that social Darwinism “now lies in the dustbin of intellectual history.”

            1. “Survival of the Fittest” has always struck me as just wrong.

              It should be “Reproduction of the Fittest.”

              In evolutionary terms, Survival doesn’t matter if you don’t Reproduce.

          2. Dennis , wrong until proven right . Example Sri Lanka , Peru . Next in line Pakistan , Egypt , Nigeria , etc . The weakest will collapse first . I had earlier posted that 2022 will be when we are talking about oil and 2023 will be when we talk about food . Guess , I was incorrect . The discussion starts now . FOOD IS ENERGY AND ENERGY IS LIFE . Just for your info did my weekly grocery shopping today . 30% of the shelves were empty . No it was not early morning but late afternoon when the shelves should have been stocked up . The general public does not notice but I do because I understand ” The energy conundrum ” .
            P.S : Use to buy eggs at Euro 1.25 per doz in Jan . Today Euro 1.75 .

            1. Continue . Lemons in India selling at $ 5.00 per kilo . My friends inform me that is about $ 0.75PER LEMON . You ain’t seen nothing yet . This is in a country where income per capita is $ 6300 per year on PPP basis and GDP per capita is $ 1927 per year in nominal terms . The problem here is all want the truth but can’t handle the truth . Jack Nicholson in a ” Few Good Men “

      2. The poorest people in the world are subsistence farmers, and rising food prices actually improves their situation.

        1. Dude, you’re on another planet. 1/2 the worlds extremely poor (those living on less than $1.90 a day) live in just 5 countries- India, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, and Bangladesh. They also happen to be the most populous countries of South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, the two regions that together account for 85 percent (629 million) of the world’s poor. I don’t see rising food prices doing much good for anybody… you think the worlds poorest will benefit? Wtf lol

          https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/half-world-s-poor-live-just-5-countries

          1. “Subsidized agriculture in the developed world is one of the greatest obstacles to economic growth in the developing world. In 2002, industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) spent a total of $300 billion on crop price supports, production payments and other farm programs. These subsidies encourage overproduction. Markets are flooded with surplus crops that are sold below the cost of production, depressing world prices. Countries with unsubsidized goods are essentially shut out of world markets, devastating their local economies. Moreover, farm subsidies lead to environmental harm in rich and poor nations alike.

            Prosperous countries give about $50 billion to $55 billion annually in foreign aid to underdeveloped nations. If developed nations reduced their subsidies and eliminated trade barriers – such as import tariffs protecting domestic producers from international competition – this aid would arguably be unnecessary and rural poverty might be significantly reduced.

            Historically, agriculture has been a major pillar – if not the foundation – of developing economies because it provides food security, creates employment and generates local capital. For example, in 1790, nearly 90 percent of the U.S. workforce was employed in agriculture. By 1900, farmers dropped to 38 percent of the labor force, and today they account for less than 1 percent. Agriculture accounts for less than 1 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). Similar trends in other OECD countries indicate that the path to development begins with agriculture.

            Hindering Third World Growth. Every dollar, yen or euro poured into the agriculture sectors of rich nations makes developing countries’ farm sectors that much less competitive. The “dumping” of agricultural commodities at prices lower than the cost of production is devastating to developing countries, since most depend almost entirely on only one or a few products. Every year, farm subsidies cost developing countries about $24 billion in lost agricultural income. Cotton is an excellent example:

            World cotton prices have fallen by half since the mid-1990s and, adjusted for inflation, are now lower than at any time since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
            Despite the plunge in prices, cotton production in the United States grew 42 percent between 1998 and 2001.
            Due to subsidies, American cotton farmers receive up to 73 percent more than the world market price for their crop. To compensate for falling prices, U.S. cotton subsidies have doubled since 1992, and in 2001-2002 America’s 25,000 cotton farmers received a $230 subsidy for every acre of cotton planted – a total of $3.9 billion. By comparison, wheat and maize subsidies amount to $40 to $50 per acre.

            Cotton Subsidies Harm Africa. American cotton subsidies cost sub-Saharan Africa $302 million in 2001-2002 alone, according to Oxfam International, an antipoverty organization.”

            http://www.ncpathinktank.org/pub/ba547

            2. Survivalist —
              Saying “Duh” doesn’t prove you are right. Random links don’t do much good either.

              Try reading more than the headline. Your farming links are mostly about rich country farmers and coffee exports, and your population links remind us that poor people don’t live in the places discussed in the farming links.

        2. Alim , what do you know about the subsistence farmers ? I know what it is because I work with the ” Sainath Foundation ” that is chronicling the farmer suicides in India . ” You know, farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field.” . This is Dwight Eisenhower .
          P. S ; For your info Dr. Sainath is the winner of the ” Magsaysay award ” which is the Asian equivalent of the Nobel Prize .

  23. Regarding the comments above about population [and economy,food,energy], I simply do believe that we are in a condition of overshoot far beyond the earth carrying capacity.
    What are the theoretical limits of carrying capacity if we don’t encounter an energy shortage as Dennis suggests,
    or if humans learn to collectively act with a high level of planning and sensible behavior as Nick suggests?
    I have no idea. i do not expect to see those conditions. That can be an exercise for others to explore.

    If humanity had made a big course correction beginning in the 70’s when information such as Limits to Growth, Population Bomb, Silent Spring, global warming science, etc became widely circulated, and started to put the foot on the brakes rather than laying hard on the accelerator, then the situation would be less out of kilter now.
    Population would be declining already.

    I think most of humanity is not on board with making adjustments needed, and overall we are so very late to the game of making adaptations to the situation,

    If you think the assumption of overshoot is wrong, then disregard the concerns I’ve expressed.
    Or if you think you live in a favored bubble, perhaps the conditions that face the people over the horizon can ignored. I suggest, however, that bubbles can be fragile or an illusion.

    -I will acknowledge that Dennis has been doing an excellent job of modeling oil supply thus far, and his notion of a very slow decline of global supply should not be simply dismissed. If it pans out like his modeling suggests, this will give adequate time for a big proportion replacement of the energy supplied for many applications by oil, IF humanity acts very aggressively on funding and build-out of other sources. Big if.
    Also thus far, his stance on the concern about high level debt funding of civilization being an overblown issue has been correct. I remain highly skeptical on this point. It may look just fine until one unpredictable moment when it suddenly looks just the opposite. Hope that he is right.
    Any successful adaptation to the current situations will require immense funding, meaning a functional and easy credit mechanism, along with a significant level of general prosperity.

    1. Hickory,

      I agree that we are in overshoot, but I believe that demographers that have forecast population peak in 2070 followed by decline in population as total fertility rate falls worldwide, along with a transition to non-fossil fuel energy will help to reduce environmental damage.

      How it plays out is unknown, I personally think the descisions made by humans will affect the outcome and that assuming the worst will occur despite people’s best efforts leads to apathy and the worst possible outcome.

      1. Dennis,

        I believe the biological concept of overshoot is defined as following: “In environmental science, the concept of overshoot means demand in excess of regeneration.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population)

        I think that our current problems don’t fit that definition. If you look closely at our current “footprint”, you’ll see that “… “[t]his massive ecological overshoot is largely enabled by the increasing use of fossil fuels. ” ibid

        People try to force this definition to work by describing CO2 emissions as waste, and trying to calculate a certain “waste processing” service provided by our natural environment. But ” waste” is a necessary byproduct, e.g., CO2 from biological respiration. Fossil fuels are not necessary. FF CO2 is more like mercury: there’s really no safe zone of emissions, just longer periods of emissions until they create serious problems. Mercury in our environment isn’t waste, it’s pollution.

        I’d define fossil fuel GHG emissions as pollution, not waste.

        Pollution is actually a more serious problem. But, the solutions are different. The concepts of waste suggests that there’s a safe zone of emissions – if there is, it’s very small. The concept of overshoot leads to fatalism and inaction, while pollution suggests obvious and doable solutions.

  24. 363 square miles of rainforest kaput! Probably not best way forward.

    BRAZIL’S AMAZON DEFORESTATION SETS FIRST-QUARTER RECORD DESPITE MARCH DIP

    “Reuters) – Deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest fell 15% in March from a year earlier, preliminary government data showed on Friday, but even with that dip it was enough to drive the most destruction during the first quarter in at least six years. From January to March, deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon rose 64% from a year ago to 941 square kilometers (363 square miles), data from national space research agency Inpe showed. That area, larger than New York City, is the most forest cover lost in the period since the data series began in 2015/2016.

  25. https://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=245583

    Many of you will not like KD’s politics.

    But he is really writing some great stuff at the moment.

    This one is how the US has been exporting its inflation for years; the Russian forced payments in Rubles are just the beginning.

    This will cause the exported inflation to come back home.

    1. Thanks Peak . I had forgotten about him of recent . Must catch up .

  27. Just checked on the following blogs
    1. Peak oil debunked . Last post 2013 .
    2. Die off debunked . Last post 2015
    3. Bountiful energy . Last post July 2021 .
    4 . IHS CERA . Yes Daniel Yergin . Now a part of S&P global . Member of the ” infinite growth on a finite planet ” .
    They were all right until proven wrong .

    1. Hole in head,

      Peak oil has occurred many times, now you will claim that 2018 is the final peak, which as you said is correct at present, until it is surpassed.

      Bountiful energy has come and gone and the price of energy tends to adjust things.

      Dieoff is not very likely in my opinion, population will decrease because women become more educated and choose to have fewer children.

Comments are closed.