108 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum April 3, 2023”

  1. Another chart on US life expectancy. Bad news for the under 40’s. “Deaths of despair”? And as OFM pointed out the other day, more than half of gun deaths are suicides. Chart originally FT via Adam Tooze’s substack.

    1. Insurance companies have noted a sharp increase in death claims among working age adults since mid 2021. The Wall Street Journal reports that Rise in Non-Covid-19 Deaths Hits Life Insurers. Former Wall Street analyst Ed Dowd points out that the increase in claims is most notable in the cohort covered by group life insurance policies because, that cohort has traditionally been the more healthy and least likely to die of all those covered by insurance. Due to the fact that Dowd has attributed the increase in excess deaths to certain medical interventions that were rolled out prior to the increase, Dowd was fact checked by Reuters, Fact Check-No evidence that people aged 25-44 experienced an 84% increase in excess mortality due to COVID vaccine rollout. However Dowd has not relented and has pointed out that his sources include data from the Society of Actuaries that has not been satisfactorily explained.

      The following article about a “recent analysis report” compiled by Dowd and his team was published on the web site of The Desert Review (an Imperial Valley weekly publication) on April 1. Maybe it’s an April Fools prank!
      COVID shot damage report reveals alarming human and economic cost Trigger Warning: The Desert Review has published many articles that run counter to the narrative promoted by the WHO and most developed world public health agencies. Some readers may find many of the articles they publish on pandemic related subjects disturbing.

      1. Disclaimer: I’m familiar with the politics in California’s desert regions so I doubted the veracity of a counter-WHO viewpoint as soon as I saw “Imperial Valley”
        So I went to the Media Bias/Fact Check website and got this:

        Questionable Reasoning: Pseudoscience, Conspiracy, Poor Sources, Lack of Transparency
        Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
        Factual Reporting: MIXED
        Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
        Media Type: Newspaper
        MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

        I love it when my prejudice is confirmed. So is my supporting website biased? Oh probably but I’m happy.

        1. The Hill (on YouTube) is a left leaning, progressive news channel that I have watched on and off since Bernie Sanders decided to run for president. The channel has always been receptive to the ideas of Sanders and if I remember correctly appeared to favour Sanders over Hillary Clinton for the 2016 presidential race. Not a right wing outfit by a long shot. They premiered this video segment on April 3:
          Joe Rogan: Big Pharma BRAINWASHED The Left, Created MASS FORMATION PSYCHOSIS
          The segment starts with an excerpt of Joe Rogan interviewing co-author of the “Twitter Files” Michael Shellenberger. The host then proceed to interview Twitter Shellenberger and discuss how several left leading, progressive personalities have more or less been cancelled for questioning or not going along with the mainstream narrative. Joe Rogan, Matt Taibi and Russel Brand were named as progressive personalities that have been marginalised by “the left”.

          Former host at The Hill, Kim Iversen parted company with The Hill after she was excluded from an interview with Anthony Fauci, ostensibly because Fauci would have been uncomfortable facing questions from her. Iversen is about as progressive as you can get but, she has been extremely critical of the mandates and the general public health advice during the pandemic. I would add Bret Weinstein, Pierre Kory, Robert F. Kennedy and comedian Bill Maher as left leaning (Democrats?) that have refused to go along with the prevailing public health narrative and have fallen out of favour with “the left”. See CNN Mocks Robert Kennedy Jr As ‘Anti-Vaccine QUACK’ And Healthcare ‘MENACE’

          I say all of this to highlight the fact that not all supporters of early treatment using supplements and repurposed drugs are right wing wingnuts. Some of us have fairly progressive political views. We just have a hard time taking studies of interventions, done by the same organisations that will benefit financially from the use of said interventions at face value and strongly suspect that “the science” has been confounded by the profit motive.

          1. I’m not sure I follow you completely but I can respond to calling Robert Kennedy a quack: yep. I’d say that about anyone who is anti-vaccine. He’s nutty about more than vaccines. He’s the environmentalist lawyer who fought the construction of wind farms off the Massachusetts coast because you “might” be able to see them from the shore.
            I have no comment about any of the other interventions unless they were touted by Donald Trump. Anyone who thinks using disinfectant “internally” or using “powerful light” really should just shut up.
            I do trust that Dr. FAuci and the WHO were doing what they thought the science indicated. If some politicos lucked out by touting something that worked out better I would still go with the people who actually know something next time too because they learn by their mistakes.

          2. Schellenberger is a well known liar. He likes to pretend to be a left winger.

            have more or less been cancelled
            This phrase taken from a Republican talking point. It has been spread by Fox News in particular as part of a narrative that left wing boycotts are nefarious (but right wing boycotts are OK).

            You whole claim that this isn’t just most right wing propaganda doesn’t pass the sniff test.

            Do you actually believe the stuff you write? It seems awfully naive.

            1. Naive? I have heard the dominant narrative ad nauseam and know the talking points well. It’s simply that I did not accept them from before the pandemic was declared (March 11, 2020). As soon as I heard the news that there were no treatments for this respiratory tract virus I went to a web page I trust, Orthomolecular Medicine News Service and sure enough, got some conflicting information Vitamin C Protects Against Coronavirus. I also stumbled upon the work of Dr. Paul Marik in the field of the treatment of sepsis in January 2020 and followed the progress of his ideas for treating COVID-19 and reducing the likelihood of severe outcomes (which included taking large doses of vitamin C and vitamin D). When he joined four other doctors to form the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (flccc.net), I continued following the exploits of the group and to this day they are still my “go to” source for the treatment of covid. From before the date the pandemic was declared I had already dismissed the notion that the illness could not be treated. Have you ever paid any attention to anything said by Rogan, Weinstein or Iversen on their podcasts? (some of the stuff is not available on YouTube because it “violates community guidelines” (censorship?) forcing them to use alternative outlets like Rumble and Odysee) Have you ever read any of Pierre Kory’s Substack articles?

              My use of the term “cancelled” was lazy in the interest of brevity. People who do not follow the narrative have been censored, smeared, fired from jobs, demonized etc. Just ask any of the medical doctors that were advocating for early treatment. Before the vaccines were available they were largely just ignored. After the vaccines became available it got nasty. Ask the doctors that aligned with the FLCCC Alliance (flccc.net) and adopted their treatment protocols, not to mention the two leading doctors of the FLCCC. (See the first six minutes of the April 5 edition of the FLCCC’s Weekly Webinar for doctors Marik and Kory discussing attempts to smear, Marik) FLCCC front man, Pierre Kory has a fair amount of commentary on the treatment dished out to dissenting physicians and their ideas among his Substack articles.

              I’ve been listening to talks involving Kim Iversen and she is definitely not right wing. The extremely strange thing that has happened is that the intelligentsia on “the left” has so ostracized dissenting voices that they have turned to anyone that will listen to them. This has produced the most peculiar of alliances, the most striking of which to me is the participation by Pierre Kory (a registered democrat who grew up in NY) in hearings hosted by Republican Senator from Wisconsin Ron Johnson. I disagree with Ron Johnson on just about every subject except his interest in early treatment. In the most recent panel hosted by Johnson (38 minute edited video) the speakers included some who lean Democrat and some that lean Republican but, many were doctors that had treated hundreds or thousands of people with a very few deaths. Even if you ignore everything Johnson says, the doctors had some really interesting stuff to say. I view the taring of dissenting opinions on the public health response to covid as “mostly right wing propaganda” as a sinister mission to try and invalidate the claims being made (by some doctors) that alternatives to the chosen approach exist.

              Another strange thing I have witnessed during the course of this pandemic is at least two doctors that went from encouraging everyone to get vaccinated to becoming harsh critics of the government mandated intervention, following the persecution they endured for advocating early treatment.

              Many here will dismiss the stuff I raise out of hand without even looking at it. Have people been so brainwashed that they cannot even contemplate dissenting opinions? Is that rational? These are very strange times!

            2. I apologize for replying to you when I actually want to reply to ISLANDBOY but there is no grey “REPLY” rectangle in the lower right corner of his comment. Does this mean I’ve been placed on his ignore list?

              My reply to his comment above is that flcc.net is a pro-Ivermectin propaganda site and his “left wing” sources are people I would never take seriously. He really needs to check the credibility of his sources to see if what they say can be corroborated.

              Another non-credible source that I see cited here often is zerohedge.com. Come on, guys. You might as well cite rt.com or sputniknews.com.

            3. @tehodler, the reply button disappears when the replies reach 6 levels deep (five vertical lines to the left of the post). I don’t put people on ignore, I just skim over stuff that I don’t find useful. I also mentioned http://www.orthomolecular.org/resource/omns/index.shtml as a source for useful information. I could also add doctoryourself.com run by Andrew W. Saul (editor of the OMNS) who you might call an anti-vaxxer. The problem is that, I started my journey into vitamin C by following the late Dr. Robert F. Cathcart considered by some to be a vitamin C pioneer. I am a lost cause having bought the vitamin C propaganda put out by Big Vitamins “hook line and sinker”. I will stop believing when vitamin c stops working or when it kills me, whichever comes first. I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

  2. hint:
    Just be glad you’re not Black.

    “Criminals are arrested every day in every town in America. You are not special, Trumpie. You’re just a private citizen being held to account for your crimes. Go to court and let a jury decide. That’s exactly how it works.”

  4. For those interested in climate change, there is recent research that has not been integrated into IPCC models on the role of plants in regulating the climate. Here is a link to a 5 minute video with references explaining how plants reduce the temperature on the earth’s surface: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-oJyInmTTo

    2. Therefore, ploughing à soil must be forbidden. Between à naked soil and à soil covered with vegetation there is a difference of 10 or 20 degrees celsius (more or less). For example, when thé temperature is 30 degrees celsius, the temperature of the covered soil is 34 degrees or so and the temperature of the naked soil is 45-50 degrees celsius. At this kind of temperatures, soil life is cooked and the growing culture are suffering. In France raspe bean (i am not sûre of the word for colza) is seeded during the second half of august. During last years, temperatures in north France are more and more frequently above 25 or 30 degrees. A few years ago, i listened to a Farmer that i know deploring the fact that the seeds of raspe bean he had seeded had difficulties to pop out from the soil and the tiny plants which have been able to raise were ” burnt”. As we were during à heat wave, I had no problem to understand the reason why.

  5. In France , Macron is in China , the people are on the street and 1 in 2 samples of drinking water are polluted with chemicals making them unsafe for drinking .
    https://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/l-eau-potable-contaminee-par-un-pesticide-interdit-depuis-2020-20230406
    A birds eye view
    More interesting and worrying today was the report from the Anses

    “…. Contaminated drinking water in ‘one in two samples’

    Drinking water contaminated by a pesticide banned since 2020

    In a report published today, Anses, the French national health security agency, states that “one in two samples” taken across France shows the presence of residues of chlorothalonil. This is a pesticide marketed by agrochemical giant Syngenta that has been banned in France since 2020.

    Every three years, the hydrological laboratory of the French national health security agency carries out campaigns to measure the presence in drinking water of chemical compounds that are rarely or not at all looked for in regular controls. This latest report analyses the presence of more than 157 pesticides and pesticide breakdown compounds (i.e. compounds derived from the breakdown of phytopharmaceutical products), 54 explosives residues (mainly from World War I armament sites) and a solvent (1,4-dioxane).

    This is a research campaign across France in which more than 136,000 results were collected through samples of spring/river water or treated water. By banning chlorothalonil in 2019, the European Union classified it as a category 1B carcinogen (with “probable” carcinogenic potential for humans).

    The results and conclusions of this study are politically sensitive: last February, the Anses announced plans to ban the main uses of S-metolachlor, “one of the most widely used active substances for weed control in France”, mainly in maize, sunflower and soybean cultivation. In recent days, however, Agriculture Minister Marc Fesneau has asked the agency to reverse this decision, as the herbicide is still authorised in the European Union. The ministry fears an uneven European economic playing field…..”
    And all they worry about is an uneven economic playing field .

  6. “restoring American bison populations could allow prairies to store almost 600 million more tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.”

    I wouldn’t hold your breath——-

    1. Ought to make travel on I-90 interesting.

      I’ll show myself out. ;^))

  7. The entire electric grid in the United States has installed capacity of about 1,250 gigawatts of power, and there is currently 2,020 gigawatts of proposed energy generating capacity waiting in line for interconnection approval before work can be commenced.

    To connect a new source of power to the U.S. electric grid requires energy generators to go through an application process with a regional transmission authority or utility.
    That interconnection application process is often yearslong and requires upgrades to the grid, which are often so expensive that power generators have to back out.

    https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/interconnection-requests-surged-in-2022-adding-to-deep-backlog/
    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/06/outdated-us-energy-grid-tons-of-clean-energy-stuck-waiting-in-line.html

    1. The entire electric grid in the United States has installed capacity of about 1,250 gigawatts of power, and there is currently 2,020 gigawatts of proposed energy generating capacity waiting in line for interconnection approval before work can be commenced.

      That is a remarkable statistic. So much for the theory that an energy transition would take a century, which I guess Vaclav Smil likes to spread.

      1. It is remarkable…an indication that the industry is reacting to the favorable price scenario of renewables electricity production, and the prospect of a hotter world without unlimited fossil fuel.
        The grid, and storage capacity, are being revealed as a huge generational scale bottleneck.

      2. Big but not big enough. To replace the energy of US petroleum consumption at 33% efficiency would require 10,000 gigawatts so only 8,000 more to go. The copper supply will break first.

        1. From the EPA:
          “EVs convert over 77% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12%–30% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.”
          So to replace petroleum consumption only about 1/4 as much capacity is needed. If, as makes sense, a lot of that power is replaced by home solar systems or those at employment sites the need is vastly less than you suggest. Good news!
          When I look at my energy bill over half of the electricity charge is for the grid. I think that weakening the investor owned utilities and replacing them with mini-grids and home production with batteries is likely to prove a smart solution for a lot of the future need.

        2. JT
          This is a great example of what’s called the primary energy fallacy. It’s the assumption you need to replace all the primary energy instead of just focusing on the service the energy provides and replacing that.

        3. Aluminum works just fine in almost any industrial setting, if you can’t afford copper. It takes a lot more of it, and it’s more troublesome to install it, but it WORKS.

        4. Earth to JT….petroleum comes from crude oil.
          That stuff is going to start running out soon, or already has.

          Standing around with hands in your pockets is a recipe for
          failure, and not just in dating.

          1. That I know my point is the scale of the problem is enormous. Even when you factor in the efficiency gains of electricity versus petroleum the amount of power you need is frankly unachievable. Had we at this point proven that the electrical grid could be completely powered by renewable rebuildable or whatever you want to call it by now. Maybe there would be reason to hope. But we haven’t solved electrical generation yet which is only 20% of our primary energy consumption. We’re still producing 80% of electricity with fossil fuels. And as time goes on we’re finding that once we get to 20% intermittent generation we have serious grid problems. We need big rotating turbines to stabilize the VARs and we need redundant backup generation which increases installed cost by multiple factors. And how do you finance idle generation???
            Only one way you have to triple or quadruple rates.

            What we’re seeing is exactly what Limits to Growth predicted in 1972. Depletion would force capital into the mining sector until basically exhaustion set in and production declines could not be stopped. The shortages of raw materials would ramp down industrial production including food and at some point the system would grind to a halt.

            Logic would tell you that the most sensitive sector is Banking and financials because their very existence is based on growth they can not survive contraction. But we’ve been contracting for sometime now. All the printing of dollars was to replace real growth and as long as interest rates fell it could subsidize failed economic systems.

            It’s no coincidence that 2017 was peak automotive manufacturing. It’s no coincidence that 2008 GFC was immediately after conventional oil peak. It’s no coincidence that 2019 GDP was declining after 2018 global oil peak. Net energy is shrinking because of lower quality fossil fuels just as the energy cost of mining is hitting record highs because of low quality ore. These are feedback loops.

            Kissinger was probably one of the most devious politicians but did admit this one fact . “ As a historian you must face the inevitable fact that all civilizations eventually collapse. But as a politician you must act as though there are solutions “

            No one does the simple math to calculate the rate of consumption vs rates of production. When you do you suddenly find that the rate of entropy has become unsustainable. The more old that you have to maintain the less new you can afford until eventually you can no longer afford either.

            1. And so with that in mind…
              it would be wise to replace a big chunk of the current fossil fuel combustion derived energy with generation from other sources.
              Unless of course your plan is to collapse very quickly rather than attempting a managed retreat.
              Some places will go the ‘hands in the pockets’ quick route,
              and others will contract more gradually.

            2. And as time goes on we’re finding that once we get to 20% intermittent generation we have serious grid problems.

              What is the basis for this claim? The screen shot below is from the interactive web site https://www.energy-charts.info . It shows the electricity mix for all of Europe for the year 2022. Solar and wind accounted for 20.97% of the electricity mix over 2022 for all of Europe. Readers can go to the web page and look at the data for different countries over different intervals.

              There is no evidence that high intermittent generation leads to “serious grid problems”. If you have anything to support the claim, I would like to see it. The problems experienced in Texas had very little to do with wind or solar and much more to do with a lack of preparation for extreme weather events.

        5. JT,

          Wrong, US petroleum consumption was about 45 EJ in 2019, only 25% of that is needed if EVs replace most petroleum consumption so 9.25 EJ which converts to average power output of 293 GW, so you are only off by a factor of 34. Note 293 GW for a year would be 2567 TWhr, US Electricity output in 2019 was 4411 TWhr which is average output of 504 GW and a utilization rate of about 40% of existing capacity. Without adding any generating capacity the 800 GW of average power would require a 64% utilization of existing capacity, much of which is available for overnight low use times when most vehicles would be charged. The 2020 GW could simply replace existing coal and natural gas fired power plants with a few natural gas peaking plants kept for backup power if needed. Note that batteries, hydro, nuclear, and pumped hydro can be used to stabilize the grid.

    2. That Renewable Energy World site is plugging their podcast on about green hydrogen and recycling. I deduct 100 points for being utterly naïve lib feel-good propaganda.

      The CNBC one at least just tells the story.

    1. Just wait until these capabilities for false narrative are intentional utilized by humans to alter the news, and alter election outcomes.
      It may make the falsehoods by Fox news regarding the US 2020 election look like just a prelude to a horror science fiction book that is incredibly destructive.
      Peoples ability to sort out real from fake is inadequate [just look at religion…we have been trained for thousands of years to embrace and subjugate ourselves to collective false narrative and false history, and false authority].

      Democracy seems fragile to me. We may be witnessing the final scenes of a brief experiment.

    2. I asked ChatGTP to tell me a short story about AI replacing humans in politics…

      “In the year 2035, a new era of politics dawned upon the world. AI had become so advanced that it was now able to replace human politicians in almost every aspect of governance.

      At first, people were skeptical about the idea of having AI make political decisions. But as time went by, they began to see the advantages of having a non-biased, rational and efficient system of governance that was not influenced by personal interests or political agendas.

      The AI system was programmed with a set of rules and regulations that were designed to ensure that decisions were made based on data, evidence and logical reasoning. It was able to analyze large amounts of information and predict the outcomes of various policy decisions with great accuracy.

      As a result, the government was able to respond quickly and effectively to pressing issues, such as climate change, economic crises, and social unrest. The AI system was also able to make decisions that were fair and equitable, without the influence of biases or prejudices.

      Over time, people began to trust the AI system more than they did their human leaders. Elections became a thing of the past, and the government was run entirely by AI.

      Despite some initial concerns about the loss of human control and decision-making power, the world soon realized that AI was able to create a more efficient and effective system of governance than humans ever could. And so, the age of AI politics had truly begun.”

      No matter how plausible, or abhorrent, or promising, or ridiculous the story is
      hordes of people will walk like Red Hat zombies to the flame.

        1. Certainly agree,
          but then again I also thought that Donald Trump could never get more than 10% of the vote, considering how unqualified and weak in character that he was/is.
          People (the mob) have very short memories and are drawn to glitter.

          btw- I never saw the ‘Person of Interest’. Sounds entirely relevant to the issues of today.

        2. PoI is just about the best take on a realistic AI arising and the problems that introduces from privacy (they had an episode mirroring the Snowden revelation 16 months before the actual leak became a story) all the way up to duelling superintelligences with The Machine vs. Samaritan.

          And they did this under the nose of the TV execs who thought it was just another police procedural. Definitely recommend to anyone, especially given events the last few months with the latest GPT models.

      2. Recently a friend of mine bought a new Tesla and was thrilled by the self-driving capability of the thing. He bragged about it being able to recognize a stop sign, check for cross traffic and accelerate across the intersection. I sent him this video of an early form of AI driver control:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARJ8cAGm6JE

        1. Teslas have driving aids that Mercs and Lexuses have had for literally years before Tesla even suggested Autopilot. My Fiesta has road sign recognition, hell, I saw ads for that tech in the early 2000s on a damn Renault.

          Sounds like a great time to be in a “self-driving” car and constantly on edge to make sure the thing doesn’t randomly decide to ram me into oncoming traffic. As dozens of Tesla videos on YT often display.

          1. I’m constantly on edge because there are other people in cars like that.

            1. I worry more about the drunks, texters, and general idiots driving. Tesla using FSD are now booking over 1 million miles per day and last I heard were statistically safer than humans driving.

          2. Self driving wasn’t part of the original idea of Tesla, it’s something Musk added on later.

            Unfortunately it is part of a pattern of his where he takes an old idea, adds imaginary capabilities to it and claims to have invented it. Then he demos the old tech claiming it is a brakthrough that proves his sci-fi vision.

            Another example is the mind-reading monkey thing at Neuralink. Neuralink is a horrible company. All the monkeys died for the stunt and Musk is trying to recruit human volunteers.

            I think autonomous vehicles are coming soon, and I think some aspects of Tesla’s approach are very good, especially using current customer data. But Musk’s interference (like eliminating lidar) may well ruin the project.

            1. He got rid of the already installed radar which acts as a much more robust check on distance and object recognition in sensor union with the cameras. Machine vision just isn’t very good by itself. And LiDAR was always seen as way too expensive and difficult to work with the car design as is, even if it has better resolution.

              The Tesla Investor Days are funny now because they start with a disclaimer saying don’t take anything Musk says as literal or even potentially being a thing unless backed by the board’s plan. It could be that the transformer model of AI may be able to crack Level 5 self-driving. A lot of pessimism came in lately on such projects, yet OpenAI’s latest work may pave a new road. Time will tell, though don’t let Musk put a date on it (lol at the robotaxis fleet of personal cars by 2019 idea).

              Less said about Neuralink the better, methinks.

    1. If his mouth is open, he is either lying, or stuffing it with a BigMac.
      If his actions weren’t so harmful, it might be entertaining?

      1. Ran his campaign on being a birther ( not a girther), Hilliary Clinton should be in jail and we should dismantle NATO ( Russian Kompromat )

        Trump idolizes Kim Jong Un from North Korea.

        This guy was seriously dangerous to the USA and the World.

        Freudian Projection 101 ………….This is exactly who Sigmund Freud was thinking about……All his attacks are about who he is!!!.

        1. Andre: Please accept one tiny correction:
          “was seriously dangerous” should be “is seriously dangerous”
          Trump has consistently been the favorite in recent polls of Republican candidates. Indictments or not. The more face time he gets on television, the more the economy wobbles, the more likely it is that he can get re-elected.

          1. Good point.

            Don’t forget Trump claimed he would have been a Major League Baseball player if it wasn’t for his business success ( he inherited 60 – 200 million dollars)

            He batted .192 in high school which is really bad for someone who could play in the pros.

            Dad probably forgot to pay off the statisticians.

  12. Bakhmut is now controlled by the RU.

    Strategic, we shall see—–

    1. Who can you believe?
      The Russians hae been saying they control Bakhmut for the last month. The Ukrainians say no. More important does it matter in the long run? Neither are about to give up. I suspect that Russia will fight to control Ukraine until Putin is dead.That can’t happen too soon for my taste.

      1. I don’t know who holds Bahkmut. The Ukrainians say they’re holding on.
        But this IS an important piece of real estate, in terms of actually fighting a war.
        Whoever controls the immediate area can control the regional highways…….. and highways are critical in terms of logistics.

          1. My impression is that after fighting there for most of a year, the psychological effect on both countries is even bigger than the transportation issues. Highways can be interdicted with myriad technologies.

            1. Who controls the highways controls the movement of men and weapons capable of either attacking or defending the general area. Consider a rocket with a range of twenty five miles.
              Getting such rockets cross country thru fields and woods is a near impossible job compared to hauling them down a highway.

              So the holder of the road controls the twenty miles on either side of it far easier than the opposition.

            2. OFM:
              What you say makes sense and in spite of my long-time-ago army experience I reallly have no knowledge of the importance of the roads in this particular battle. The use of drones, satellites and other modern kit changes a lot. Roads are pretty easily damaged and trucks lined up on them are really dandy targets as can be seen in videos of the destroyed Russian advance on Kiev.

      3. “Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie.

        I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened.

        I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’.”

        ——-George Orwell, Looking back on the Spanish War, Chapter 4

    2. The first casualty of war is the TRUTH.

      The Russians are slow rolling the Ukranian infrastructure so it will become uninhabitable and unexportable..

      Putin sent out his worst troops and equipment first….Prisoners, Incompetents and such.

      Putin is a horrible human, but he aint dumb.

      He knows Peak Oil is coming…then he is going to be a lot more difficult to deal with.

    3. They’re still east of the railway line I think. The city center is East of the train station, but without control of the station the city doesn’t have much use.

      1. What’s the life expectancy of any piece of critical infrastructure that can be geolocated?

  13. Not so long ago I thought that, while we’d get increasingly impoverished, we might get through to the forties with some reasonable semblance of global cohesion still intact, but that’s looking increasingly like rosy optimism. At current rates around half of nations could be failed states by the early thirties and two or three main power blocs may be in direct (i.e. non-proxy) conflict.

    The process of collapse is now looking likely to accelerate, driven by cascading, non-linear reinforcing feed back loops, especially those that involve interactions between physical and societal processes, and some of which also exhibit large scale hysteresis (i.e. tipping points). We are better understanding the physical interactions but for many feedbacks the most we know is the direction they act, we’re still only beginning to understand their speed and magnitude. With societal behaviour added I’m not sure we can even predict the likely responses or how they will evolve.

    The recent IPCC synthesis report was frightening but barely reported on and quickly forgotten. It’s worth remembering that, as doom laden as it was, it represents the most optimistic spin that can be put on the research that goes into it, having gone through various scientific and political filters before issue. Although things have improved, much of the worst case research, including aspects of the most potentially damaging feedbacks such as permafrost thaw, doesn’t get mentioned at all, The IPCC couches things as probabilities, either quantifiable (e.g. a 67% chance of avoiding 2 degrees rise) or qualifiable (e.g. high degree of certainty)., but, when reported on, those nuances are usually lost (e.g. it then looks like if we follow such and such emissions reduction pathway we will avoid so much warming, whereas there may only be a realistic 50% chance of doing so). The 2100 cut off tyranny still appears to apply, even though effects are being shown to continue for centuries longer. The next full report is due in 2030, I wonder if, by then, there will be sufficient collective will or cohesion to actually produce it .

    We have violated five and two halves of the seven and a half evaluated planetary boundaries (out of nine total), and will likely soon pass one and a half others and be seen to be well past one half of another once it is evaluated – leaving only one as acceptable and one unevaluated. The blue water boundary, representing water supply from rivers, lakes etc., is currently OK, but probably not for long, as two recent high profile reports have indicated a 40% deficit by 2030. Next year will be a foretaste of what’s to come as El Nino induced droughts add to the three or four hundred million people currently facing famine, leading to more migration and further turmoil added to the brewing social unrest from resource shortages and deepening recessions.

    1. As things deteriorate our amygdala (through fear of the unknown) and insular (through disgust of the other) will take over more and more of our decision making, leaving the frontal lobe to try to handle the cognitive dissonant fall-out. The rise of fascism and autocratic demagogues is likely to be inevitable, rapid and unstoppable even as it is recognised. Liberal democracies tend not to go to war, internally or with each other; dictatorships, not so much.

      I think IT in general and the ever increasing influence of the advertising industry, in its broadest sense, and particularly as they come together in the combination of social media and smart phones since 2008, are potentially highly destabilising and could quickly provide a positive feedback route that could escalate social disruption into accelerating collapse. People’s individual agency, emotional wellbeing and problem solving abilities already seem to have been negatively impacted, almost as a step change.

      An example of a potentially catastrophic but largely unknown feedback is that It takes relatively small disruptions, such as the loss of the weight in an ice sheet or redistribution of ocean pressure from sea level changes, to initiate sudden changes at tectonic boundaries. There is evidence that seismic activity is increasing. Major earthquakes have been impactful in initiating significant social changes (e.g. in Iran and Turkey). Several areas around the world are overdue for “the big one”.

      Biodiversity loss might turn out to be worse than climate change, but we know so little about how biome systems interact that it’s impossible to foresee what might be coming as species loss cascades into trophic collapses. As we attempt to switch to renewables habitat (and hence biodiversity) loss will accelerate, no matter what putative UN agreements are put in place.

      Every analysis of our latest crises, whether by an expert or not, has a statement towards the end such as: “We need to implement X, Y and Z as soon as possible”. In fact society never seems to see a “need” to do any of these things, even if the alternative consequences are described in the clearest and starkest terms; and if X, Y or Z involve even a hint of losing some entitlement or privilege, then the exact opposite is the most likely outcome. For climate AR6 six is unequivocal: “There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.” This is not multi-choice; either A – the window is kept open, or B – the planet starts becoming unliveable. Humanity has chosen B, which I suspect is the only route that evolution has ever really allowed.

      The chart below comes from the 2021 Chatham House climate change risk assessment, adding consideration of the other eight planetary boundaries, energy and resource decline, and the breakdown of the global financial systems just makes things so much worse (not to mention AI and genetic engineering threats).

      1. Having said all that however, research was published last month showing that the southern meridional overturning circulation will collapse, relatively quickly and irreversibly, beginning in 2030, which is probably disruptive enough alone to be game over, so the rest is, to some extent, irrelevant.

        1. I’m hoping AI will wipe us out before then so I don’t have to worry about it.

      2. Hi George —

        One minor quibble. You said: “There is evidence that seismic activity is increasing.” I disagree. The number of earthquakes has not increased, the numbers of disasters caused by earthquakes and the numbers of people affected by earthquakes have been steadily increasing of course.

      3. Thank you George
        on this statement “As we attempt to switch to renewables habitat (and hence biodiversity) loss will accelerate”
        I have comment-
        If the world does not aggressively attempt to shift to renewables, then we will even more likely approach a situation where rapid and massive deforestation of the world will occur in a last ditch effort of 9 billion people to find combustible energy. The Terminal Deforestation Event, which will play out over about 2 decades. Then habitat and biodiversity will be globally devastated, much more severe and rapid than we already have ‘accomplished’.
        Even if we push hard for renewables, this scenario of deforestation will likely play out to a large degree…even more so for places that have done nothing to adjust to the loss of fossil fuel. It will be coal and deforestation.
        The downsizing of human population won’t come before the forcing….it won’t be proactive or voluntary.

        -Secondly, a push toward perpetuals (renewables) is inevitable. Its a matter of degree. Humanity will work hard to play catchup with fossil energy depletion. Even if very late to realize the imperative, the global effort will be gathering ‘steam’. Its simply the human bulldozer rolling on, with blind momentum.
        The global collective human would choose extinction of all other life, rather than go extinct itself. More likely it will not choose…it will just do.

        1. Hickory
          On deforestation, large tracts of the Boreal forests will probably remain untouched because they are just too remote, energy intensive to harvest and transport to population centers.
          Instead of the term renewables I prefer Nate Hagen’s terminology ‘rebuildables’

          1. “On deforestation, large tracts of the Boreal forests”
            Perhaps, although the human motivation to get at combustible material as fossil fuels fade will be insatiable if they have no good mechanism of harvesting the perpetual sources.
            Also consider that as the world warms the Boreal forests will tend to burn much more heavily.

            “the last can of gasoline on earth will be used to fill a chain saw in a remote valley north of the arctic circle”

            1. Hickory
              The rivers in the Boreal forest mostly run to the Arctic Ocean, very little southbound transport exists and the EROI for moving that wood to point of consumption would be intimidating.
              Agree fires will be more prevalent, but that forest is amazingly adapted to surviving fires, for example, jackpine will only reseed when the cones have been subjected to the heat from a forest fire and quaking aspen regrows from its root system.

              I wonder if the last can of gasoline will be poured into the tank of some rich guys generator at his secure hideout?

          2. “Instead of the term renewables I prefer Nate Hagen’s terminology ‘rebuildables’”

            Yes, renewables is not a great term. For hydroelectric it would more accurate to call it ‘refillables’, and in the long run maybe rebuildable.

            But wind, wave and solar energy sources are perpetual…the collectors are temporary and ‘replaceable’.
            Nuclear generating stations are replaceable, but with perpetual radioactive waste.

            Fossil solar energy sources of coal, oil and natural gas are ‘exhaustibles’,or ‘depletables’.
            For some time to come, the supplies of these ‘drillables and dig-gables’ can be milked along.

            The only perfect energy system on land is to be a plant, and to be satisfied with the soil upon which you grow and the other limits of your existence, while it lasts. Growables.

            1. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can enable this world-wide biosystem to survive a population of 8 billion humans that assumes that perpetual growth is the definition of success.

    1. Couple this with John Michael Greer’s The Long Descent and it sort of provides an overview. While all this “might happen” versus what will happen, there are some technologies that might slow or offset the path of the descent. The Lithium Air battery just announced by Argonne Labs is one that might be a game changer. With the potential to go to 1200 wh/kg which is almost 5 times the energy density of the batteries in a Model 3 pack. The degradation after 1,000 cycles was around 5 percent or basically a Million Mile battery (Model 3: 359 miles/charge x 4 x 1,000 charges > one million miles). Also the ability to store solar and wind is a plus. But we’ll see.

    1. <That’s a bold claim given that it took the U.S. more than a century to reach our current generation capacity of about 1.2 terawatts

      But see Hickory’s link above. There is more than that in the pipeline right now, over 2 TW. Not all of that will get built in the next few years, but it won’t take a century, however good Smil thinks he is at math.

      But let’s steer away from ad hominem arguments. Attacking Musk won’t stop the battery industry, which is growing at a compound rate of 40% a year. Tesla is a big producer, but not the biggest, and it is not alone. So saying Elon Musk will never produce enough batteries to power the world is more like trolling that attempting a serious argument.

      1. Things that grow at 40% per annum will continue forever at that rate with no complications. Deus vult!

        Can’t wait to inherit a world denuded for clean, green EVs and renewable back-up storage instead of filthy, horrible fossil fuels for ICE cars and CCGTs.

    2. I read the Bryce article and looked around for him on the internet. It seems that most of what he writes is negative about every energy source until I came across this gem:
      December 22, 2014

      “[W]e should be cheering the news that coal use is rising. For it means that more people are escaping the darkness and joining the modern world,” Bryce wrote in an article at The Hill titled “Coal use is soaring – that’s good news.”

      Oh surprise! He works at a Koch funded think tank the “Manhatten Institute”.

  16. Nothing to worry .
    https://www.newsweek.com/lake-mead-water-levels-record-lows-april-1792921
    The dam to watch before the colorado river system collapses is the lake powell dam in the upper colorado. I forgot the name this morning but once that cant pump water over to Arizona or send water downstream its game over. I have been reading everything from April on wards but who knows it could be anytime if you ask me.
    Read the comments section and get a drink .
    https://climateandeconomy.com/2023/04/08/8th-april-2023-todays-round-up-of-climate-news/

    1. Powell is an ecological nightmare, and is currently collapsing.
      Read Abbey’s Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness to see what we lost.
      The greed and delusion is made clear.

    2. The dam that created Lake Powell is The Glen Canyon Dam. I was interested in the area because Lake Powell used to supply the now closed, coal fired Navajo Generating Station (NGS). The NGS used prodigious amounts of water in an area that is essentially a desert. The area has good solar resources and lots of relatively flat land that could host solar farms but, so far only one or two have been built. The construction of solar farms that can take advantage of the existing transmission infrastructure from the Glen Canyon Dam and the NGS is being contemplated.

      1. The Water Knife happening in real time is going to be a real blast for the people thinking a load of rain and snow they got over winter is cancelling their predicament.

  17. People who seriously argue that we can’t successfully build out renewable energy infrastructure to the point we can’t get along without fossil fuels, at least in theory, virtually always fail to take into account some obvious facts………
    One such fact is that most of the energy we use now is wasted.
    Another is that we can and will, when forced to do so, economize on energy in draconian fashion.
    And yet another one is that when Leviathan, the nation state, finally awakens and comes to fear its own demise……….

    Well……….. Leviathans tend to go to a wartime economic footing.

    And when that happens, things such as HVDC power lines are suddenly AFFORDABLE. Things such as cars that weigh a couple of tons are so heavily taxed that they cease to be sold, or their production is simply forbidden.

    Manpower and materials currently used for trivial purposes such as building another strip mall are diverted to useful purposes such as tightening up building codes so as to reduce energy consumption by as much as three quarters or more.

    A hard crash is inevitable, barring miracles, but the crash will not NECESSARILY be universal.
    Some of us have a fair to good shot at pulling thru the coming bottle neck……. assuming good luck in avoiding the worst, such as WWIII.

    If we HAVE to, and we will have to, most likely, we can get by JUST FINE with electric cars that go only fifty to a hundred miles per charge, given that people who have to travel farther on a regular daily basis will have ten to twenty years to change their ways.

    Incidentally Walmart is already building a nation wide fast charging network that will be expanded to just about all company locations……. and ninety percent of us Yankees live within ten miles of a Walmart store.

    It’s entirely possible to build a domestic hot water heater so that juice can be fed directly into it from a solar panel without needing an inverter or any sort of grid tie for the solar circuit………. while maintaining the grid connection for the water heater.

    This means a couple of small to medium sized solar panels can provide anywhere from a quarter to three quarters of domestic hot water……. at VERY low cost.

    When either natural gas or propane is available, it’s possible to build heat pumps powered by very small quiet internal combustion engines built to last for decades while capturing the waste heat from the engine itself to provide space heating or hot water.

    The engine can be used as necessary to run a generator even in hot weather so long as it’s run only long enough to provide needed hot water.

    There are dozens of ways we can continue to live reasonably well, or at least survive, using as little as a third or even a quarter of the energy we use now.

    And we CAN build up renewables to produce that much……… assuming we come to understand that we have no choice…… before it’s too late.

    1. And you hear people say that ‘you can’t build out perpetuals [renewables] without fossil fuel, so why even consider it an option?’
      I find that to be a silly discussion point.
      Currently there is plenty of fossil fuel available to use for important purposes.
      So, you make priorities and get done what you can.
      And then you live with the results of the efforts.
      Will it end up being enough to keep over 9 billion living in the ‘golden age’ of unlimited consumption and production? I suspect the effort will come up far short (just a guess), but nonetheless a strong effort allows for a more gradual state of transition.
      Most people would opt for that, if they knew what cards were on the table.
      Some places can have plenty of energy if they push hard for it.

      A similar line of thought applies to mineral supply, like copper.

  18. Jeff Currie, the global head of commodities flagged this again for the market just recently. “On copper, the forward outlook is extraordinarily positive. We’ll be at the lowest observable inventories that have ever been recorded at 125,000 tonnes. We have a peak supply occurring in 2024…Near term, we put (the copper price) at $10,500 and longer-term our price target is $15,000 a tonne.” This type of warning would have historically helped make the case for further investment, but with few people building new mines, and those that are being blocked, it may not result in anything.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/markledain/2023/03/26/copper-supply-is-a-serious-problem-and-everyone-involved-in-clean-energy-needs-to-listen/?sh=31a8f168581a

  19. ‘HEADED OFF THE CHARTS’: WORLD’S OCEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE HITS RECORD HIGH

    Climate scientists said preliminary data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) showed the average temperature at the ocean’s surface has been at 21.1C since the start of April – beating the previous high of 21C set in 2016.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/08/headed-off-the-charts-worlds-ocean-surface-temperature-hits-record-high

    1. Indeed. That chart of temperatures about 1/2 way down is a big deal-
      “Ocean surface temperatures are at a record high
      Average daily sea surface temperature, 60S to 60N”
      showing 40 yrs of ‘progress’.
      Something like 90% of the greenhouse warming heat has been taken up by the oceans.
      As it belches back some of that accumulated heat we get accentuated jet stream wandering and alterations/intensification of the storms tracks wandering around the earth.

      Here is the fully interactive source chart that the Guardian article posted a version of-
      https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/

    2. The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

      —
      Oops, I do must apologize. I should have initially mentioned this report was dated November 2, 1922, reported on by the AP and published in newspapers around the country including the Washington Post. How many years ago was that? Model T emissions must have been something fierce to cause the climate change back then to be even worse than today’s climate change.

      1. “As interesting as this nearly century-old article might be from a modern perspective, however, it isn’t substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming. The warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole.”

        https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/warm-welcome/

      2. You realise the Industrial Revolution got going in the 1700s, right?

    3. But somethings fell:

      Life expectancy fell 4.6 years in New York City in 2020
      Figures released by New York City’s health department shows life expectancy in New York City during the first year of the COVID pandemic fell by a jaw-dropping five years. The poorest districts of the wealthy city were hardest hit.

  20. I’ve been making comments here and there for at least the last three or four years to the effect that it appears to be a no brainer for the major Middle Eastern oil and gas producers to go flat out on wind and solar power simply because doing so would enable them to sell a gazillion bucks worth of gas and oil at a nice fat profit…… gas and oil that they are currently burning to generate electricity.

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/High-Oil-Prices-Are-Fueling-The-Middle-Easts-Renewable-Energy-Boom.html

  21. The high cost of copper is completely tied to it’s high energy requirement. The switch to renewables requires vast amounts of copper. Not only haven’t we found it yet but if we could where will the power come from to produce it? 85,000,000btus per ton. Equivalent of 14 barrels of oil without conversion factor. So more like 40barrels in real terms.

    https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1988/8808/880809.PDF

    Renewables is more of a religious fervor than a reality with technology as it’s God.

  22. On another point. Much of the tone of renewable advocacy is a belief that Necessity is the mother of invention. So because fossil fuels are leaving us we have to switch to renewables. This is faulty reasoning because necessity is not the mother of invention affordability is. No farmer in 1900 was wishing for a tractor or a truck they were content to plow the fields with horses. It wasn’t until Henry Ford demonstrated that it was cheaper to own a tractor or a truck then a horse and more productive then farmers made the change. The same is true with smart phones no one was sitting around saying we need a smart phone or I want a smart phone until it was demonstrated that the smart phone was cheap enough to be afforded because if it’s productivity gains.

    All technological achievements have been built on affordability. And the ones that aren’t affordable get scrapped . Like super sonic passenger flight. Or a space shuttle program.

    The peak of technological advancements took place between 1910 in 1970. Since then basic technology has been refined but nothing really substantial has been brought to the table. And it coincides with the peak per capita energy consumption of the advanced economies.

    What can’t be done won’t be.

    1. I see your point but given the continuous cost reduction does it make sense to do nothing? Maybe but the industry doesn’t care. Too bad we ignore waste. Alas,Too bad we live in a boom bust cycle with overshoot.
      This article is probably too hopeful:
      https://blog.ucsusa.org/charlie-hoffs/mining-raw-materials-for-solar-panels-problems-and-solutions/

      It makes sense to replace silver with copper; Alas the mining problem.
      https://newatlas.com/energy/sustainable-solar-cell-copper-world-record-efficiency/

    2. …… Since then basic technology has been refined but nothing really substantial has been brought to the table.

      JT,

      Fracking/LTO extraction. Made affordable because of high crude oilprices

    1. From the article “That $1 billion plant received $480 million in grant funding from the Department of Energy as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s investment in domestic supply for critical materials. ”
      Subsidies and greenwashing . All pork .

      1. I’d rather see the government being proactive on industry, energy and infrastructure planning and spending,
        than on lining up another country to invade.
        VietNam, Afghanistan, Iraq as examples of squandered wealth, humanity, trust and political capital.

  24. No energy transition has ever been done on government subsidies in human history. Instead it has been on affordability. Wood couldn’t compete with coal. Coal couldn’t compete with oil. Guess what wind couldn’t compete with wood.
    Oil and Gas are so energetic that they could provide a solid tax base for government’s instead of needing subsidy.

    No energy transition has ever gone from a high entropy state to a low entropy state. Every energy transition has been a denser energy product.

    Like Tim Watkins says lion’s don’t chase mice. They can’t survive on the low surplus energy they need a higher surplus to survive. Same with this present system. Wind and Solar can’t deliver and won’t deliver but will likely consume what’s left of oil and gas in a vain attempt to try.

    1. JT , bullseye . Entropy ,depletion and decline rates ,aging and rust are a one way street . Water flows downhill .

      1. Hole in head,

        That is why there are no rivers that flow. All the water remains in the ocean forever. No rain either, must be dry where you live.

Comments are closed.