213 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, April 9, 2022”

    1. Not really. “Lithium” batteries don’t contain a lot of lithium. The name tends to confuse people. Unlike gas tanks, that are full of gas, lithium ion batteries are not big chunks of lithium. Also the lithium is reused over and over again, not burned up on every trip to the shopping mall and constantly needing replenishment.

      Lithium only costs about $80/kg, way up from last year, and there are 5-10 kg in an EV. In a vehicle that costs $40,000, even a massive lithium price increase would hardly be a deal breaker.

      1. Alimbiquated, you’re aware that other components of the lithium battery, including cobalt (65% past year), nickel (104%) and even graphite are increasing, as well as metals and plastics used in fabrication of the body. I was looking into buying a plug-in hybrid the past few months, but stopped when the prices moved above 40K (and were nearly impossible to find at dealerships in the midwest). It’s not one component, it’s the whole spectrum of materials needed to fabricate EVs and associated infrastructure which will pose a barrier to widespread adoption. Of course, even IC prices in the USA have increased dramatically in the past year. I’m not sure what consumers who need cars to hold a job are going to do, but they will not be in a good mood when they go to the polling places in the USA in the fall.

        1. And used cars are still above new car prices here in West coast. A hybrid purchase is on several months waiting list. So you are paying more and more just to play out a job that is not quite keeping up and getting further and further behind, with grifts and consumer breakdowns around every corner. Very few straight and narrow paths to success at this point. And that is peak oil – the hustlers and the lucky will always get ahead – peak oil or not. It’s the pace cars, those people who just clock in/out, living simple lives, they’re basically fucked.

        2. Yes, but you are shifting the goalposts aren’t you? I was replying to the comment “Lithium prices way up. There goes the battery costs for EVs”.

          I stand by my comment. High lithium prices are not a deal breaker for EVs.

            1. What is your source?
              There have been no Calif Flex Alerts in this year 2022

              As of this very moment renewables are serving 81% of the Calif grid demand load. [4:32 pm PST]

              “Flex Alert- A Flex Alert is a call for consumers to voluntarily conserve electricity when there is a predicted shortage of energy supply, especially if the grid operator needs to dip into reserves to cover demand. When consumers reduce electricity use at critical times, it can prevent more dire emergency measures, including possible power outages.”

              http://www.caiso.com/Pages/default.aspx

            2. I live in CA and charge my electric car every night when rates are low. I use a local utility (Sonoma Clean Power) for generation with “greener” power generation, that is 93% carbon free. PG&E does distribution.

              And no grid issues with either utility.

              I haven’t checked in the last year or so but when gas prices were much lower than today I was saving about 5 cents per mile vs gas.

          2. I agree your statement is correct – but – Peak Everything and Cancer Stage Capitalism are deal breakers for EVs being a salvo for collapse. One data point isn’t a deal breaker. But at some point, you get an avalanche of data points and the system seizes up.

            1. “EVs being a salvo for collapse. ”

              That is a hilarious statement.
              As if someone really has that kind of assumption.

              A vehicle can get you from here to there, and sometimes back.
              An electric vehicle can allow you to keep moving even after the petrol becomes unaffordable or unavailable.
              An electric vehicle can cost much less/mile to get around.

              Electric vehicle, or any motorized vehicle, will not prevent the contraction of the world population which will begin this century at some point regardless.

            2. “As if someone really has that assumption” – Hickory

              I would say the assumption is heavily implied by the way a lot of these conversations play out. Step 1: Seppo says Lithium prices are soaring, adding a data point to the avalanche of data that makes collapse seem pretty inevitable to anyone taking a global view. Step 2: Alim comes in and says, won’t make a difference to the entire cost of the car (straw man), therefore, nothing to see here. This implies that the data point is absolutely irrelevant, when a HUGE part of any honest transition package away from fossil fuels has to include a huge increase in battery capacity.

              Without getting into the details of the article posted, the underlying sentiment in general bears investigation at the very least, not straw-man dismissals. In fact, this site thread exists almost entirely to bring up those sentiments. And those that are skeptical of peak-oil collapse are typically baking a successful transition into their statements. Therefore – not hilarious. Just as peak-oil doomers bake in collapse into their assumptions.

            3. Twocats —
              When people talk about EVs they tend to take short term jiggles in the market — like the current increase in lithium price, or oil price — and convert them into long term predictions. The opposite error also occurs — long term trends are often translated into dubious predictions about short term developments.

              I have spent my entire career building and marketing high-tech products. When I look at EVs I see this:

              1. EVs are a minority product. It doesn’t matter what “most people want”, they still have plenty of room for growth.
              2. EVs are supply constrained. Waiting lists for the product of 8-10 months are the norm.
              3. There are a lot of niche markets where EVs are clearly superior to other vehicles. Taxis and delivery vehicles are examples. That is a sign that long term growth is possible. New products spread from niches to the mainstream, rather than simply increasing sales in an undifferentiated way.
              4. EVs are innovating quickly, and a lot of innovation appears in EVs first, and trickles down to ICEs. Electronics are what sells light vehicles these days. For example, the RAM got to be a popular pickup because it has a better entertainment system and comfy seats, whatever the “tough guy” TV ads tell you. Crucial innovations like over the air updates skew towards EVs. As a result, EVs are inherently more attractive.
              5. There is strong political pressure to adopt EVs, especially in the world’s biggest car markets, China and the EU. Governments are spending lots of money to make sure it happens.
              6. Just about every car company on the planet is betting the house on EV tech. In the short term that means many will accept losses to increase market share.

              There has been a steep rise in lithium prices recently, but the lithium content of a car is a small percentage of the overall costs, and lithium is a common and easy-to-extract mineral. so I seriously doubt increased lithium prices matter much to EV sales.

              In the long term, I see this: The car industry is stuck in a competitive cycle like the sexual selection that burdened peacocks with their ridiculous tails. Just look at the pickup trucks they sell these days. The return on investment in real innovation pales in comparison with adding electronic doodads or just making the vehicle bigger. Adding a ton of cheap steel ($600?) can increase the price by $10,000 or more.

              EVs offer real innovation people are willing to pay for. Lithium prices don’t really matter. Most people can’t find lithium on the periodic table. They hear the word in connection with RVs for the first time, and make mental associations that don’t make sense in the real world.

            4. Alim – I wouldn’t disagree with a single thing you said, and yet still I would be surprised if anything resembling the current global civilization exists by 2030. We’ve extended and pretended for already a decade and the strains in the system appear (to me and many on this forum) to be enormous. “I know what it’s like to lose. To feel so desperately that you’re right, yet to fail nonetheless.” You are right, and yet you will lose nonetheless. Or if you are over 50, you’ve more or less won, and its your kids that will fail.

            5. Twocats —
              Seppo did not say that a higher lithium price is a sign that the world is coming to an end. You invented that. He said it would lead to higher battery prices.

              I replied that even if true, it would not limit sales of EVs. I stand by that statement.

          3. two can play that game – all he said was “there goes the battery costs” – you’re the one that mentioned “dealbreaker for EVs”. I can see you are triggered because the EVs are clearly so important to you. It really doesn’t matter for me. I stand by my statements. You’re the one that took my comment as a personal attack “shifting the goalposts” on your statement. I even said I agreed with everything you said, and yet you post and post. So I’ll just say, you won, good job alim. Can’t wait for everyone to be driving EVs

            1. Twocats —
              The connection between EVs and batteries is not whether I am “triggered”. EVs are the main driver of demand for batteries by far.

              https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2020/02/world-battery-production.html

              So the question of whether batteries are “expensive” reduces to the question of how the price will affect EV demand.

              In fact, the EV business is basically just the battery business, which is why car manufacturers are so hesitant about it, and why Tesla is so interested in solar and grid batteries.

              Like the spreadsheet was the “killer app” for the PC, and telephones were the killer app for mobile devices, EVs are the killer app for batteries. For the time being, the two are inseparable.

    1. Peak . Signs of peak oil ? Both of us know the answer . Only in a world of infinite resources can men live as brothers . LTG / POD is in play .

      1. The US 7th Fleet patrols these parts…

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

        “The Seventh Fleet was formed on 15 March 1943 in Brisbane, Australia, during World War II, under the command of Admiral Arthur S. “Chips” Carpender.[citation needed] It served in the South West Pacific Area (SWPA) under General Douglas MacArthur. The Seventh Fleet commander also served as commander of Allied naval forces in the SWPA. ”

        Australia and US could control 40% of the worlds coal reserves.

        Write that down!

        1. Peak ,the US 7Th fleet is a relic . Yes, 1943 , 80 years old . Past expiry date . This not the Spanish Armada vs Sir Walter Raleigh . This is 2022 . The new boys in town are called hypersonic missiles . They will hit the aircraft carrier even before the first plane takes off . Write that down ! Yes , I did and you should too . Bringing your kitchen knife to a battle where the Kinzhal , Kaliber, Iskander are the opponents is not a very bright idea .

          1. I think you underestimate the power projection of a US Carrier fleet.

            Be sure you don’t forget what is under the surface.

            1 US Nuclear Submarine could turn Beijing into the world’s largest ashtray.

            2. Navy fleets are built around aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers in the 21st century, as for the past 50 years, are good for delivering humanitarian aid and for intimidating defenseless countries.

              Never mind hypersonic missiles, several years ago an old Navy salt told me “There are two kinds of ships; submarines and targets.

            3. Peak , correct about the power projection part because that is what it is . Only projection but no power . The Chinese built artificial islands right under the nose of the fleet and now have setup airstrips and communication equipment . In the 1971 Indo Pak war when USA was siding with Pakistan , Kissinger threatened to deploy the 7th fleet in the Bay of Bengal and bomb Calcutta . Indira Gandhi told him to ” bring it on ” . The chicken backed down .
              Jjhman , your info is absolutely correct . The aircraft carrier is the hub of the fleet and is supported by battleships and frigates . In older days when radio communication jamming was not so sophisticated and it was reconnaissance planes went out to search where the fleet was it was an effective tool . Today with satellites the fleet is tracked 24/7 real time and a sitting duck . Jamming devices used by opponents make communication within the fleet ineffective , breaking down coordination . Submarines yes but even they can be tracked and sunk . They are not invincible . Also your opponents have them . Checkmate .
              Some additional info . The 7th fleet is in the Asia Pacific theatre . Well a fortnight ago China purchased the Solomon islands . Solomon Islands distance from Australia 3282 km , flying time 3 hrs .Distance Shanghai- Sydney is 6414 km . Last I recall their was no oil in the Solomons but a lot of coconuts . Chinese play Mah Jong .

            4. A couple of years ago there was a swedish sterling powered sub surfacing within the “safe perimeter” of a US carrier during an excercise, they never saw it beforehand.

            5. Imagine what happens to the country that sinks a US Carrier.

              There won’t be a celebration party after it has occurred.

            6. HinH:
              There are no battleships!
              Peak Avo:
              I don’t think it’s clear what would result from sinking a US carrier. There would certainly be much suffering and much outrage. What if it was sunk by the Chinese navy in the South China Sea. Would the US start WW3? I doubt it, but I don’t know.

  3. Will 12-month centered average peak oil be Nov 2018 or sometime in 2025? It doesn’t really matter. The world I grew up in during the 80s and 90s is long gone. Capitalism’s boom/bust cycles have only accelerated as Peak Cheap Oil has set in. So we are going through what could properly be seen as Peak Oil Waves that will batter us, often locally as well as globally, until all civilizational institutions are eroded. Fukushima, Covid-19, Housing Crises, Russia Invasion. There is just a lot less spare capacity and redundancy throughout systems world wide. That is why corruption, graft, scams and grifts are so ubiquitous – legitimate paths to victory and success have been occluded. Sure there have always been flim-flam men, the US was built on delusion and shady dealings (puritans looking for eden, virginia was supposed to have gold, railroads into oblivion). But now, it’s on steroids, amplified by networked systems. No wonder so many people are tuned out – it’s The Revenge of the Taoist.

    1. I had the privilege of spending a good bit of time with him over a period of four or five days about ten or twelve years ago at a conference with various people working on environmental and energy issues.

      There’s no doubt in my mind that taken all around he is one of the two or three best informed, broadly knowledgeable people I have ever met, personally, in my entire life.

      He may or may not be right about a number of particular details or issues, because nobody can predict the future except in very broad terms.

      But anybody who fails to consider his various works seriously is making a serious mistake.

  5. This is an article about the Russian occupation of the Chernobyl disaster site:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61048256

    The interesting thing to me was that the site needs fuel to prevent radioactive material from leaking, apparently on a large scale. So if we do run out of oil in a few decades, will there be a new nuclear disaster?

    1. I can’t draw any conclusions from the very limited information in the article.
      But it’s possible the Ukrainian guy doing the talking is saying that the spent fuel still on site or maybe even still inside the ruined reactors is so hot it requires active cooling measures.

      This seems to mean in turn that if the power goes off, some portions or parts of the plant can still go critical, releasing clouds of radioactive smoke particles.

      This is scary as hell, given that it’s been many years since the plant went down, and I would have thought that by now they would have figured out ways to solve this problem, so that containment only, to prevent spreading due to corrosion, rain, soil erosion, etc would be enough.

      If anybody here knows more about the situation there, please post links, thanks.

      1. There was a show I watched on some info channel about the challenges of containment of Chernobyl – the sarcophagus construction, and so on. It details how the sarcophagus has robotic cranes built into the ceiling so that they can pull apart the debris of highly radioactive graphic moderators, concrete, and the surrounds of the reactor and the fuel itself, eventually. This is the ‘eternal’ aspect of the Chernobyl problem, that it must be dismantled and each piece disposed of bit by bit. I’m glad the Russians pulled back from Chernobyl without blowing it to pieces …

        1. Guys there are 400 of these nuclear ponds ( exhausted nuclear rods ) on the planet . Now if Chernobyl frightens the s*** out of you then what is the exit plan for the other 399 ? What did Westinghouse promise ? Electricity so cheap that it need not be metered . You bought into the lie , now pay the price .Hasta La Vista , Amigo .

          1. HiH – you are being silly – we’ll just fill those nuclear ponds with cheap cheap Lithium… problem solved! Forever!

        2. Try to imagine the competence of the Russians planning and executing the ongoing Chernobyl safety issues with the same level of expertise and concern for human life demonstrated in the attacks on Chechnya, Syria and Ukraine.

          1. An attack on Chechnya? In the period after the collapse of the USSR, an independent republic was formed in Chechnya in which the economy was based on a criminal basis: robbery, theft and the slave trade (I personally know a man whose son was stolen for ransom and he had to be ransomed, there are thousands of such cases). Chechnya at that time was called the Islamic Republic of Ichkeria. After the first Chechen war, it separated from Russia, but a few years later attacked the neighboring republic (part of Russia) Dagestan. After that, there was a second Chechen war. Chechnya could not exist independently, because there are no foundations for the economy and it is cut off from the sea. And yes, the Chechen separatists were supported by America and Great Britain in order to harm Russia. Now Chechnya is flourishing, has returned to normal life, of course there are shortcomings.

            1. I wasn’t choosing sides, merely recalling the brutality of the Russian methods.

            2. jjhman.As for the cruelty of methods, you are mistaken. Whoever controls the media controls public opinion, worldview. You get information about the cruelty of Russians from biased media, these are second hands that increase accents in the right places.
              And yes, the war in Chechnya was certainly cruel. I saw a lot of filming where Islamists cut the throats of captured Russian soldiers, it’s hard to watch.

            3. Soldiers are, for the most part, fools. They require strict oversight. In the US occupation of Germany it is estimated that approx 11,000 rapes occurred. I’m the Soviet occupation of Germany it is estimated that 2 million occurred, 100,000 in Berlin alone. Not much has changed. The Russian army is a mob. There are some Gucci units, but the majority of the Russian army is a rabble. Chechens are the new Cossacks, and are being used to spread terror in Ukraine.
              UK, France, Germany & Poland could take care of Russia if it came to it. USA is not necessary. While Russia supporters may feel they are right, it is moot, because Russia is neither a dominant or preeminent power. Russia has a Big Army and a Good Army. It’s Big Army is not good, and it’s Good Army is not big. Russia has half bled to death for a province in eastern Ukraine. The Accountants of War won’t like that on the balance sheet. Putin stepped on his dick biggly.

  6. Late in the last thread comments on the the idea of ‘overshoot’, and reactions to the related challenges, were made by Dennis-
    “I personally think the decisions 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.”

    and Nick-
    ” The concept of overshoot leads to fatalism and inaction”

    I don’t advocate a stance of apathy, inaction or fatalism.
    Quite the opposite.
    I do think it is wise to look at the challenges square in the eye as best we can,
    and acknowledge the situation. That is step 1.
    Beyond that, I am most interested in discussions centered around the range of adaptations that are possible.

    To think that perpetual growth, or even stability, is in the cards,
    or that a smooth path is likely as the massive transitions we are just now starting to experience unfolds
    is to downplay the harsh reality that limitations and disorder will present. I believe.

    Nick- “I think that our current problems don’t fit that [overshoot] definition.”
    Based on Nicks comment I have gained clarity about the root of a longstanding schism of how we view many topics.
    Simply, I think that human population overshoot is a fundamental reality, while he does not.
    Either it is a concept he has not studied much, or he has studied it and reaches a different conclusion than the scientific community, or simply finds it preferable to avoid the issue.

    If I thought as he does and did not consider overshoot as the base issue affecting humanity and the biosphere, then I would also be reaching very different conclusion about state of the world, problems and priorities. Perhaps more like him.

    Please note- I have no intention to bring attention to any individual. It is the topic that is of interest.

    1. I too am most interested in discussions centered around the range of adaptations that are possible. As well, I like to consider the probabilities that possible adaptations will be implemented. When working in healthcare I learnt that one of the possible adaptations people in America could make was to eat healthy and get a lot of exercise in order to reduce obesity and health related costs. It seems like a no brained; “individuals pursuing their own best interest” and all that. So while it is within the range of possibilities that more Americans will eat more nutritious meals and participate in a more healthy lifestyle, it doesn’t seem very likely. I don’t wish to shame the obese. It is a complex illness. But I would like to emphasize that many great ideas are not operationalized very extensively, particularly in the realm of Public Health.

      https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

      I feel American inability to effectively implement anti obesity measures is a reasonable proxy for Americans’ future likelihood of engaging in drastic changes to their lifestyle in order to accommodate environmental concerns. Most folks don’t seem to care too much about their health until they get a nasty diagnosis.

      “If I knew I was gonna live this long I woulda taken better care of myself”

      1. I’m personally of the opinion that if we want to really understand ourselves, the keys to the questions are to be found in the study of evolution in general, and evolutionary psychology in particular.

        Our brains, and that ephemeral portion of our brains, which we term “mind” are the products of millions of years of evolution.

        Evolution works by preserving physical traits and behaviors that enhance survival.
        Our evolutionary background is such that we have a mindset that enables us to deal with the very short term very well indeed. We can fight or flee on an instant’s notice.
        We understand days, and seasons, and we’re mentally geared to living a few weeks or months or years ahead.

        We’re capable of thinking long term, upstairs, in the wrinkly outer portion of the brain, but the midbrain is the boss, and it’s basically a mammalian herd animal brain. So long as we’re comfortable, safe, well fed, etc, we’re just not likely to do much thinking, period, taken as a species.

        Survivalist in this case is dead on.

        “https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

        I feel American inability to effectively implement anti obesity measures is a reasonable proxy for Americans’ future likelihood of engaging in drastic changes to their lifestyle in order to accommodate environmental concerns.”

        The general public isn’t going to do jack shit, pardon my french, until it’s ALARMED and SCARED, at least not in terms of making any sort of serious sacrifice of any sort.

        This is why I say we all need to be praying to our favorite mountain, rock, snake or sky daddy or mommy for a series of Pearl Harbor Wake UP Events……. a continuous series.

        A very small portion of us, the sort of people who hang out in forums such as this one, the small portion of us who actually TOOK and UNDERSTOOD biology at the university level, etc, can think and act critically.

        The rest of us……… well,” sheeple” is a term that fits all to well.

        Sometimes I’m glad I’m old.

        But this is not to say the situation is hopeless. A few countries with reasonably well educated citizens and enough remaining natural resources might manage to pull thru the bottle neck more or less whole…… given some very good luck.

        I used to think the USA would be such a country…….. but now that I see about half of the college educated men in this country standing ready to vote for the current day Republican P,err excuse me, American Fascist Party……..

        I’m not so sure anymore.

    2. I actually had this conversation today – that even though we “appear” to be in overshoot, we keep inventing technologies to allow us to grow our population. At least, that was the person’s argument. So overly optimistic feelings re: technology I think might be a big part. Anyone who has actually dealt with these technologies knows the tradeoffs are not free and are cumulative. Industrial farming degrading topsoil, draining aquifers, and reliant on ever increasing amounts of fertilizer, which cause blight zones in the Gulf, and rely on steady supplies of natural gas. As just one example. And then what happens? https://www.reuters.com/world/food-prices-surge-new-record-high-march-un-agency-says-2022-04-08/.

      I think its also a failure to understand a system stripped of fail-safes and redundancies. Just in time economy, etc. That any given region is a week away from empty shelves. So we have grown this population built on a cosmically massive jenga-tower of interconnectedness. It’s like trying to conceptualize a billion dollars. Our little monkey brains really can’t do it.

      1. I made a calculation of the US national debt a while ago, not including unfunded liabilites if I remember correctly, and came up with 6 stacks of one dollar bills stacked to the moon.
        (inspired/checking another calculation I read about, but that one came up with only four stacks…)

        2. Well I would say population is a real thing that exists, while debt is a concept made in our imaginations. Debt points more to the inability of economies (in this case, capitalism) to continually increase profits, and debt is a tried and true way of papering over that reality. Though without debt we almost certainly would not have built the largest civilization ever seen on planet earth.

          1. It would have been better to not have done that in the first place…

          2. “debt is a concept made in our imaginations”

            On a practical basis if a person, or a company or a country, is
            heavily indebted (has spent much more than they have) or is
            not credit worthy (has poor prospects of paying off a loan),

            then their chance of getting funding for any project will be poor.
            That pertains to planting a crop, purchasing a vehicle, funding the countries budget for the upcoming cycle, deploying a drilling rig, or upgrading a port, as examples.

            In that sense, debt is just as real as money. And can make the difference to having abundant food or starvation.

            1. Abundant food leads to, you might have guessed it, overshoot.
              Sad that americans, and others, didn´t follow Dean Vernon Wermers advice…

            2. Again, you make it sound like these rules of “getting funding” the evaluation for who is “credit worthy” and the terms of the funding itself are somehow objective realities, when in fact they are extremely artificial.

              To say the result of not getting debt can have real world consequences is equally artificial: if credit can just be created, then if you don’t get credit its because the system has determined you unworthy of the risk, but these evaluations change constantly with business cycles, geography, race, etc. Just because you are killed by an artificial system doesn’t mean it isn’t artificial. Prisons are a good example. There aren’t prison trees. We made them. We can make more if we want. The same cannot be said of oil.

            3. We are talking about different things.
              I’m sure you understand that without cash or big credit, no one is going have the capacity to drill and operate an oil well (etc).
              And that is real.

            4. In China rural debt was once a crushing problem. It was common for peasant farmers to have debts that they wouldn’t be able to pay off for centuries, and debt was inherited from father to son. It also led to increased centralization of land ownership, as poor peasants lost their land when they defaulted. The crisis had been building since the middle of the 19th century.

              When Mao was leading a guerrilla army he dealt with the problem as follows: Whenever he took a village, his first move was to seize all the records of land ownership and debt, and burn them in a bonfire in the main square of town. The problem of rural debt went up in smoke. It also made the Communists popular*.

              Later he made a lot of disastrous decisions that cost millions of lives, but this simple move was so good that the Kuomingtang imitated it as one of their first acts on arriving in Taiwan. The result was an unprecedented economic boom.

              *Another thing the Communists did was tear up the graveyards that were taking up so much valuable rural land. This was less popular. Millions of gravestones were repurposed for paving. When I traveled around rural China in the 80s I often noticed them used as stepping stones.

            5. alim – that was one of the most bizarre comments on debt imaginable. did you have a point there? you okay?

    3. Hickory,

      “…. he has studied it and reaches a different conclusion than the scientific community”

      I have studied it. But, here’s the important thing: the scientific community has not reached the conclusion that human population overshoot is a fundamental reality. This is a fringe idea. It is not a mainstream idea, and it does not remotely come anywhere close to the kind consensus that has formed around climate change, for instance.

      The idea that biological overshoot is a useful model for human populations has some value, but it’s mostly misleading. It’s very far from the mainstream.

      I believe there is consensus in the scientific community that what we’re doing is unsustainable in a variety of ways, but that’s different.

      1. The idea that biological overshoot is a useful model for human populations has some value, but it’s mostly misleading.
        Why do you think it’s misleading? Every other part of the current calamity cluster (climate change, peak oil, drought, destruction of megafauna, etc.) would be much less problematic if there had never been more than 500 million of us.

        It is the root of the problem. It doesn’t matter if it’s not “mainstream”.

        1. LLOYD —

          Indeed, every major problem facing humanity is exacerbated by the ballooning human population.

      2. But, here’s the important thing: the scientific community has not reached the conclusion that human population overshoot is a fundamental reality. This is a fringe idea. It is not a mainstream idea, and it does not remotely come anywhere close to the kind consensus that has formed around climate change, for instance.

        Someone, please tell me… How far from reality does a person have to be to write such a paragraph as this? Or is it just me? Is the current overshoot of the human population really just a fringe idea? Yes, there is a consensus about climate change. But there is also a consunsus about what is causing climate change. What is causing climate change is not a fringe idea. What is causing the sixth great extinction is not a fringe idea. What is causing the destruction of the earth’s environment is not a fringe idea. The massive overshoot of the human population may be a fringe idea, but only for those living on the fringes of reality.

        1. Ron —

          Sometimes I think Nick just makes outlandish (wacky) comments to elicit a response. If over population isn’t the root cause of the world’s sorry state (global warming, environmental pollution/destruction, habitat loss, sixth mass extinction, intensive farming practices, consumption of finite natural resources, such as fresh water, arable land and fossil fuels), what is? I X’d him out a long time ago.

            1. “Sometimes I think Nick just makes outlandish (wacky) comments to elicit a response.”

              I think he really does believe what he writes.
              On overshoot, I think its a combo of a
              lack of scientific training,
              and a very strong desire for
              a pleasant outcome.

              I prefer a pleasant outcome as well. Nick and I are completely aligned on this.
              But my preference and my expectations do not overlap at all on these issues.

            2. HIC —

              Yah, religion works as well, it guarantees the future you want: Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya. 😉

            3. You won’t be finding me praying to anything.
              Silence is a better use of the universe.

            4. Survivalist,

              Do the footprint calculations. If you subtract the impact of fossil fuels, you get a number that is less than 100%, which means “sustainable”. Now, I agree that these calculations are a bit simplistic, but the point here is the importance of fossil fuels in our overall problems. FF is not needed, and therefore these calculations point to the importance of elimination of their burning.

              These calculations are often pointed to as proof of overshoot. Again, I agree they’re a bit simplistic, and that we have other problems. But…do the calculations, and think through the implications on your own, rather than just reading the summary.

            5. That is an insane statement by Nick because if you eliminate fossil fuels you BY DEFINITION would eliminate the overshoot problem. Population would fall so dramatically it could even cause undershoot as the disease from the mountains of dead bodies and loss of services would cripple those remaining.

            6. Survivalist, If you just massacre four fifths of the world population you would eliminate the population overshoot. It’s so simple you’re an idiot for not seeing it.

      3. Nick,
        “the scientific community has not reached the conclusion that human population overshoot is a fundamental reality.”

        OK, lets say overshoot applied to humanity is just a concept, rather than scientific consensus or fundamental reality.
        And that perhaps there is some phenomenal pathway of change from the current status that allows population to grow as if the physical and biological constraints are manageable indefinitely.

        We come to the discussion of what are the elements of this ‘phenomenal pathway of change’ that can help make humanity exempt from the status of population overshoot?
        Its a more constructive and practical topic of discussion to focus on…

        I assert that the conclusion has a high likelihood of being exactly the same- overshoot has occurred and its ramifications are going to be experienced by all in these coming decades.

        One of the frequent posters has studied the issue over many years, btw-
        “Carrying Capacity, Overshoot and Species Extinction” 11/29/17
        https://peakoilbarrel.com/carrying-capacity-overshoot-and-species-extinction/

        [thanks Ron]

        1. Hickory,

          lets say overshoot applied to humanity is just a concept, rather than scientific consensus or fundamental reality.

          Well, let’s not simply stipulate this for discussion. I think it’s a good idea to come to some kind of agreement on the question of whether “overshoot” (defined here as human population overshoot and collapse) is generally agreed on by mainstream scientists. Because if we agree that something is truly very far from a scientific consensus, then one begins to realize that we need to do our own thinking about it more carefully. There’s a saying in the scientific community: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. The phrase is central to the scientific method, and a key issue for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere.

          As evidence for the proposition that “overshoot” is well outside the scientific mainstream, I’d point you to two places: the UN population projections (the UN seems to me to be a very clear representative of a widespread and mainstream approach). And, a recent Atlantic article that seems very representative of the mainstream: we see no sign of the idea of overshoot or collapse – https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/03/american-population-growth-rate-slow/629392/

          So, are we agreed that “overshoot” is outside the mainstream?

          1. Nick, do you actually believe that the USA is the world? While the USA only added 393,000 people last year, Africa added 30 million to its population. But that is all beside the point. Even if Africa had not added a single soul to its population that does not alter the point that the earth has about four to five times the population it can sustain long term.

            Nick, this is just exasperating. You have to have more sense than you indicate with such stupid comments. What fucking planet are you living on?

            1. Ron,

              That’s a good and interesting discussion, but that’s not my point. My point is that demographers, actuaries and mainstream ecologists do not assume that human populations are likely to generally collapse any time soon.

              Ask yourself, as you read the Atlantic article: could this article be written by someone who thought that world population was five times what could be carried, and therefore is likely to violently collapse very soon?

              Another small example of mainstream approaches: https://study.com/academy/lesson/population-projections-definition-calculations.html

          2. Nick- the mainstream press and UN population projections examples that you give are good examples of failure to take into account the scientific concept of overshoot.
            No doubt that mainstream culture has made a very strong attempt to ignore or downplay the issue. In this regard, you are a good representative of the general thinking, and are certainly not indicative of the science community on this.
            Like global warming- it is a very inconvenient truth.

            Climate change is a manifestation of Overshoot. Other manifestations of overshoot have a much higher certainty of impacting humanity than climate change, in my estimation. Things like spasms of starvation, forced migrations, fighting over scarce resources, shortage of key ingredients of industrial civilization. Even in the optimistic scenarios.

            1. Hickory,

              As I said to Ron, that’s a good and interesting discussion. I certainly agree that there will be to some extent problems like spasms of starvation, forced migrations, fighting over scarce resources, shortage of key ingredients of industrial civilization, etc.

              But that’s not my point. My point is that demographers, actuaries and mainstream biologists and ecologists do not generally assume that human populations are likely to generally collapse any time soon. The UN projections are representative of the scientific mainstream. Really, they are.

              Why am I pressing the point here? Because if you think that the idea that irreversible human population overshoot is a mainstream concept in any branch of science, you’re reading sites and sources that are misleading you.

            2. Nick,
              I first learned about carry capacity, population overshoot, and limits to growth in 9th grade science class in 1975 (yes I am that old!), as we studied the Limits to Growth publication. Yes, science class.
              I went on to a long academic run, all science based. I have been paying attention to all this for a long time and I have come across no information or concept that shows that we as humans are immune to earths limitations, or negating the idea that it was only through the use of extraordinary and temporary means to accelerate population growth far beyond was is natural or sustainable.

              Technology and social factors can surely alter the time course or severity of the trend, but these things don’t change the basic fundamental situation. As i see it.
              Sure others see it differently. As as person with sociology as your basis, i understand that your approach comes from that focus. It explains your approach. But it is just one facet of the complex picture.
              You might find these kind of discussions interesting.
              https://climateandcapitalism.com/2018/08/29/carrying-capacity-technology-and-ecomodernist-confusion/

              You may look out your window at your city and feel that it is a stable scenario, with plenty of energy, food, materials and social cohesion to sustain indefinitely.
              But i assure you, very many places in the world do not look like that.

              There are 37 urban areas in the world with population over 10 million (2 in the US).
              None of these places have the food or energy to get by without extraordinary importation that relies on stability of a very complex economic system. I do not believe that stability of the system, or social good behavior, is something that we can rely on. We will see a lot of chaos with the loss of cheap energy, and episodes of food supply disruption, or just people rubbing up hard against each other (Rwanda 1994 for example). These things aren’t new, but they will be on a grand scale.
              All of these cities are extremely vulnerable to disruption of stability. So are all of the smaller ones.

            3. Hickory,

              You had a good 9th grade science teacher. Limits to Growth (LTG) was a popular topic at the time (I annoyed friends and family talking about my fears about it’s implications when it came out), and this was a legitimate modeling exercise. I’ve been thinking about it ever since, both as a hobby and as it affected my science-based career (BTW, where did you get the idea I had a sociology background? Not that sociology isn’t scientific, but I get that you’re talking about something non-STEM, and it’s not the case. I don’t usually mention it because It’s not really relevant to anything – real arguments and evidence are important, not authority – but for the record…).

              But…if you look at the reception by the science community at the time, you’ll see that it was not accepted as evidence for population collapse. Whether that was correct of them is a long discussion, but I think it’s clear that it was not accepted as that kind of evidence, and still is not. Just look at the comments by Dennis Meadows – his frustration at the reaction of the science community is palpable.

              Even Donella Meadows, the lead author of the LTG book, didn’t argue that collapse is inevitable: “like Limits to Growth, it also concluded that avoiding a collapse scenario is still possible:

              “However, collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion.”

              https://donellameadows.org/last-call-complicated-story-studys-simple-findings/

              The rest of your points are interesting, and worth discussion. For instance, it’s important to note that the non-sustainability of fossil fuel carbon emissions and other GHG emissions is well accepted and mainstream. But whether collapse is realistic is a long and complex discusion.

              So, first..do you agree that the idea of inevitable population collapse (as envisioned in some of the LTG scenarios) is not a mainstream idea in the science community?

            4. Nick-
              ““However, collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion.”

              To be clear, I am not suggesting that a particular rate of decline is specified by these challenges. Collapse implies a very rapid and profound decline. That is possible, but I don’t have any idea about the probability. A collapse is much more likely in some areas than others.
              On the other hand this ‘sustainable equilibrium’ level that is mentioned in the quote above is likely to be at much lower than current population levels. We might arrive there fast or slow. An involuntary contraction in global population. People won’t handle things gracefully, and that will make things much worse.
              Thats how I see it.

            5. Hickory,

              I understand. But I’m focusing, still, on the question of the scientific general consensus, and the fact that population collapse is outside of it. Have you looked at Dennis’s population projections? I would say that they are within the mainstream, just barely, and that any faster rate of population decline would be outside the mainstream. Again, I’m talking about the projections that would be created by mainstream demographers, actuaries, biologists, ecologists, etc. I would speculate that you could find a significant portion of climatologists and ecologists that worry that there is a significant risk of something much worse, but the mainstream definitely would not project that a dramatic involuntary decline was an inevitable outcome.

              What do you think?

          3. Those UN reports are simply extensions of existing trends and made more by economists. When we talk about “mainstream” in this case I would have thought we were talking about scientific consensus. Who cares what Fox news thinks about overshoot?

            But if you talk to ecologists, marine biologists, geologists, or any field dealing with natural world and its resources, I think you’ll find a pretty grim outlook and overshoot would be considered an absolute given.

            Therefore I think you would find much more support for the concept of overshoot. Certainly collapse would be a sort of “expected” outcome, but I don’t see Limits to Growth or Malthus quoted much these days (as you said). Natural scientists see humans as having wildly overplayed their hand in specific ecosystems around the world and there have been consequences. For a scientist to parlay that clear evidence into a notion of widespread civilizational collapse, I don’t think they would feel they have enough evidence to make any prediction. They’re not in the habit of making such bold predictions.

            1. Twocats,

              Those UN reports are simply extensions of existing trends and made more by economists.

              I don’t believe that’s the case. Economists have little to do with those UN projections. We’re talking public health experts, demographers, etc. These people are very much in touch with the relevant scientific currents and states of scientific consensus.

              For a scientist to parlay that clear evidence into a notion of widespread civilizational collapse, I don’t think they would feel they have enough evidence to make any prediction.

              I’d say that’s a fair way of putting it. They see big risks and problems, but definite collapse? No.

            2. Nick,

              Wait until in an increasing number of countries large scale social unrest and chaos that governments cannot control happen.
              At some point mass migration will start. Not in a few countries.
              Overshoot is not in the genes of humanity to think about, for obvious reasons.
              When this will begin, slowly or fast, nobody can predict. Within twenty years is possible in my opinion.

      4. Overshoot as a concept and as reality is entirely mainstream in the biological sciences community.

        The remainder of the REAL scientists, people such as physicists, geologists,astronomers, etc, don’t know or think about this very often, because it’s outside their own field of expertise.

        And insofar as economists, etc, are concerned, well, they may be poking around a bit making some minor efforts to understand the big picture…….. but the vast majority of them don’t have a fucking CLUE.

        1. Overshoot as a concept and as reality is entirely mainstream in the biological sciences community.

          Of course. But that’s not the same thing as the assumption that human population is in massive overshoot, and is extremely likely to dramatically collapse soon. That is not mainstream in the biology community.

    4. Argumentum ad consequentiam and slippery slope rhetoric are often popular with committed religious types. They may be comforting to some but are no less wrong than every other logical fallacy. Argumentum ad nauseam, “complex questions” and false dichotomies often come up in faith based arguments too: the religious, climate deniers, of which there are thankfully few left, and, now, technocopians. The best arguments against “hopium” I’ve seen comes from this chap: https://climatecasino.net/2022/01/the-demise-of-hopium/ (all the other posts at his site are also worth a read). As far as apathy and inaction my experience is the exact opposite of the above. Until the full horror of our predicament got through to me I just trundled along assuming BAU would continue while pretending I was doing something to address our coming resource crisis (I wasn’t). It was only once I had an epiphany that made overshoot and collapse more than mere intellectual concepts that I made any real changes. A sample size of one has no statistical significance of course, but it is enough to disprove a theory. I made the changes knowing full well they’d make not the slightest difference and it hasn’t been a particular hardship, which I maybe expected at the time or maybe not, but I would never presume to try to convince anyone else to do the same.

      1. The article referenced here says:

        Hopium pervades the climate change and environmental movements. It festers in every green industry, boils in the rhetorical language of world bodies like the UN and IPCC, is demanded in academic journal articles and grants…

        I’d say that’s an acknowledgement that the idea of collapse is NOT mainstream. Obviously the author strongly disagrees with the mainstream, but that’s a different discussion.

        Argumentum ad consequentiam

        That’s not my argument, at least in this thread. Actually, when it comes to consequences, my argument is that fossil fuel interests love the idea the idea of overshoot because it discredits environmentalists, and that the idea of overshoot is not in fact representative of the environmental community.

        I would agree that some ideas are more important than others, and that sometimes it’s important to get them right. One’s perception of whether things are hopeless or not seems important to me to get right.

        Oddly, your article agrees: “The truth will allow every one of us to be free to think and talk about our near future unencumbered by hopium-laced falsehoods…”. Again, he’s firmly on the side the idea of doom, but…he agrees that truth is important.

        I made the changes…

        I’m glad to hear that. What kinds of things?

        I would never presume to try to convince anyone else to do the same.

        And, I’m baffled. You believe that humanity faces near extinction, but it’s not important enough to presume to convince anyone else to do something?

  7. French elections first round over . Macron the midget got 29% , Le Pen 24 % (right ) and Melenchon ( the Left ) got 20% . Now the second round is about Melenchon votes . Must add my view about the Muslim votes . They have been disappointed with Macron , will they vote ” anybody but Macron ” and tip the second round to Le Pen ? If Le Pen wins ( unlikely ) it will be the end of NATO and EU . Her platform is to get France out of NATO .
    P.S : 29% of the votes . Macron is more unpopular than Biden ,

    1. Le pen is not right but far right, racist, homophobic presented as “national preference” to not frighten moderate voters but give the impression she will take care of their problems (inflation, high fuel price…).
      People of foreign origin will never for for her except if they are completely brainwashed.

      Her father Jean Marie Lepen did deny holocaust, he is the author of the the famous sentence durafour crématoire, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Durafour

      In fact, I cannot imagine how a quarter of voters did vote for her. Many French people have forgotten history.

      1. I agree with you EVRules. Anybody but Le Pen. Le Pen is a female French Donald Trump. A right wing nut-case that wants to bring fascist rule to France.

      2. “In fact, I cannot imagine how a quarter of voters did vote for her. Many French people have forgotten history.”

        Par for the course- 45% US voters for Trump in 2016. [he lost the popular vote by 3% but still became president because of the electoral college rules that bend democracy away from one person/one vote]

        There is a large swath of global voters who prefer fascism and racism as core features of their government.

        1. “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding yourself the ranks of the insane.”
          -Churchill

          1. HT . Can’t say about others but you and me are positively insane . Glad to have company .

      3. Le Pen is also a Putin stooge, like some commenters here. Her campaign is financed by money she borrowed from a Hungarian bank supported by another Putin stooge, Orban.

  8. Good discussion on the geopolitics/economics of the Russian invasion here-
    Sam Harris podcast w Ian Bremmer 38 minutes, worthy listening. Take a walk.
    Sam Harris | #277 – How Does the War in Ukraine End?

    1. How I see things now
      -no good offramp for anyone, thus a long long unresolved conflict
      -if there is a ceasefire at some point it will include Russian occupation of the eastern and southern portions of Ukraine
      -as long as Russia occupies portions of Ukraine, they will be isolated from the ‘western’ economies (developed large democracies), and will experience a long depression
      -eventually China and India will come to dominate trade with Russia as transport links are expanded. China is the long run big winner in all of this disruption. Russia will be beholden to new masters.
      -Europe will struggle mightily to cope with the retreat in energy trade with Russia, but that relationship is terminally damaged. No trust will be regained.
      -Coal gets a 5 yr resurgence, but solar, wind, and nucs will get a rapid acceleration of funding, adoption and r/d.
      -Food shortage and high fertilizer/food prices will hit some importing countries terribly hard this year. I suspect most affected peoples will rightfully look at Putin as the villain on this, as Russia destroys much of the export capacity infrastructure of southern Ukraine and interrupts Ag operations. This could turn to be a very big story,

      Overall, big lose-lose for most, thanks to Putin.
      “The number of people facing potential starvation worldwide has already risen from 80 million to 276 million prior to the war.”
      https://inews.co.uk/news/putin-war-russia-ukraine-risks-global-catastrophe-wheat-prices-middle-east-africa-famine-1504866

  10. Putins Headlines-

    “Russia’s Invasion Unleashes ‘Perfect Storm’ in Global Agriculture
    Curtailed harvests and scarcer fertilizer all but promise hunger and hardship for tens of millions.”
    “Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine Creating a World Food Security Catastrophe”
    “Putin’s invasion of Ukraine threatens a global wheat crisis”
    “How the invasion of Ukraine will spread hunger in the Middle East and Africa-
    Vladimir Putin’s war will cause misery and unrest”
    “How Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Could Force 500M People Into Acute Hunger”
    “Russia accused of causing ‘global food crisis’ at UN”
    “Putin’s war threatens millions with hunger”
    “How Putin’s war is emptying the breadbasket of the world ”
    “World’s food supply faces ‘disaster upon catastrophe’ because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine”
    “Russia’s Invasion Unleashes ‘Perfect Storm’ in Global Agriculture
    Curtailed harvests and scarcer fertilizer all but promise hunger and hardship for tens of millions.”

    And yet still we have people who apologize for Russias invasion, and even cheerlead for Putin.
    What kind of person is that?

    1. I think an early and sharp collapse, as we may now be facing, is our least bad option. It will be horrendous for all concerned, including me and mine I’d imagine, so I’d never advocate it is a choice, but the overall global suffering will be less and it may leave some liveable environment and biodiversity.

      1. Sad truth to what you say.
        I think Greta and Vladimir have extremely different ideas on how to get there.

      2. We would achieve an unlimited livable environment and biodiversity if we could somehow magically revert to a hunter gathering subsistence farming civilization, but that’s literally impossible to do.

        1. Maybe not, if there is a more potent covid variant showing up, and 400 nukeplants chooses to not melt down…
          Sorry about the pessimistic outlook from my view, however for some it´s like “one in a million… -Your telling me there is a chance”
          But we´ll see, hopefully. (or not)
          Edit: some are terrified by any and all potential deaths, but still aware of overshoot, a bit of cognitive dissonance in my view, hard to cure one issue without the other though in a reasonable timeframe.

  11. Good to see some actual numbers.

    GLOBAL HEAT EXTREMES ON THE RISE

    “They found that over the study period, the magnitude of heat extremes significantly increased at 3.06 degrees Celsius decade, while that of cold extremes decreased at -4.76 degrees Celsius decade, on global average. Consequently, the world had transformed rapidly and steadily from a cold-extreme- to a heat-extreme-prevailing climate.”

    https://phys.org/news/2022-04-global-extremes.html

    2. It turns out that you can make that case for virtually any mined material. God seems to have consistently placed high value resources under the domain of crappy governments. Oil, nickel, lithium, chrome, the rare earths, on and on. In our free market world, where price is the only important criteria, industry goes where the cheapest resources can be found. If child labor is involved, or prison labor, or environmental destruction it will take some effort to move away from it. EVs are no worse on this account than computers, cell phones, airplanes or gasoline powered cars.

    3. Use LiFePOs.
      Cheaper anyway, and you have enough Lithium in the USA or Europe if you really want to get it. And to roll out big even Sodium batteries. Enough for local cars with an 20 to 50 Kwh battery or busses. No raw material limitation to these – they eliminated even copper and replace it with aluminium.

      The cobalt / nickel high performance batteries are more for luxury cars and later aviation – too expensive for mass rollout.

      PS: We have Lithium brine here at the Rhine. It can be even combined with geothermal power plants, since it is very hot. The brine will be stripped of lithium and pumped back where it came from. No open pit, no wast deposits. And it’s big.
      There are pilot installations now, but geothermal energy has a very problematic stand here in Germany because of the fear of earthquakes.

      Info about the sodium battery – it’s in the rollout phase, not the lab phase now:
      https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/03/26/the-weekend-read-sodium-ion-batteries-go-mainstream/

  13. “The time is coming “to again help our partner Trump to become president,” state TV host Evgeny Popov recently declared. On Thursday’s edition of the state television show The Evening With Vladimir Soloviev, Putin’s pet pundits offered an update on plans for 2024.”

  14. A few quotes:
    EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell said that the situation around Ukraine should be resolved by military means. This is a real declaration of war, a recognition that there will be no more diplomacy. Moreover, there are wars with the West, and the ultimatum has already been delivered to us.
    Barrel’s announcement in the short term (one to two weeks) potentially means the following:

    – a further complete break in relations between the West and Russia and a trade blockade (which is already being implemented)

    – collapse of peace negotiations and impracticable conditions

    – large-scale transfer of heavy weapons to Ukraine from Europe and the USA – incl. Air defense and missile ballistic systems (most likely – and aviation). Deliveries of anti-ship missiles NSM Great Britain and S-300 from Slovakia are only the first signs. The CNBS TV channel has already announced the imminent transfer of “weapons that will allow Ukraine to strike at Russian military airfields.”

    – escalation of the conflict, including attacks on Russian critical infrastructure and large-scale terrorist attacks in Russian cities.

    The urgent visit of the Austrian Chancellor (slightly disguised as humanitarian care and payment for gas) and behind-the-scenes talks is most likely an ultimatum brought to us. Oral offer of terms of surrender. All this follows from the development of current events, where for an adequate assessment it is enough to soberly assess the situation.
    Undoubtedly, the adoption of the decision to start the operation on the U. was a prepared one (including V.V. Putin’s meetings at the highest level), although a forced step. The escalation of provocations against Russia has been continuous (most clearly since October 2021), the creation of a “dirty bomb” by Kiev was a matter of the coming months.
    At the same time, before the start of the operation, they obviously underestimated the steadfastness and preparation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (with the participation of the West), the degree of loyalty of the population to the Kiev regime (including duping and intimidation), the unreliability of Ukrainian politicians and oligarchs, overestimated the duration and scale of potential panic in Kyiv . Separately, it is worth mentioning the underestimation of the ideological merger of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the national battalions. Those. their not just complete indifference to the lives of their own civilians, but the massive use of people as human shields and even executions. Obviously, they mistakenly expected that the West would limit itself to relatively local sanctions. But these were precisely political mistakes, not military ones.

    There are no complaints about the army, the troops, who professionally completed the task. Moreover, showing real and massive heroism. There are no special claims to the planning of the operation, incl. to the work of headquarters. Here you need to understand that the General Staff always develops several (including extreme) options, which are then presented to the political leadership for the final choice. Of course, in the process of implementing military plans, there were problems (communications, lack of UAVs), inconsistencies with movement and logistics. But these problems were quite natural and expected, tactical errors were quickly identified.

    A political mistake (although also understandable) was the initial orientation of the military operation towards some mixture of the “Crimean” and “Syrian” scenarios. Those. the absence of a clearly defined direction of the main strikes with a further increase in efforts. Hence – a blow with a “splayed palm”, dispersion of already limited forces, an obvious and excessive emphasis on “humanization”, limited perspectives within the framework of the “operation”. Which not only fettered the actions of our troops and led to additional losses (both personnel and equipment), but, more importantly, to a serious loss of pace and time (of course, the most important resource). And this gave a sufficient opportunity to stop the panic in Kyiv and to consolidate the collective West. Moreover, this is not criticism – but simply a post factum statement of obvious intermediate results.
    In addition, our party of “frightened patriots” managed to recover and become active. If the “fifth column”, the obvious internal opponents, was pretty well scoured in advance, then this “sixth column” obviously remained untouched. And it’s not just about the mustachioed talking heads, “carrying a blizzard”, or Abramovich as part of the negotiating delegation. All this “elite” is now too scared – and they still have a lot to lose abroad. The sudden appearance of the same Kudrin in Israel was clearly not accidental (it is unlikely that Lyosha just decided to swim in the Dead Sea over the weekend).

    All these “frightened patriots” are striving, under outwardly quite plausible pretexts, to stop the operation, seriously hoping that this deflection will be counted in the West. Their naivete in an effort to lick the boots of the “white sahib” is directly proportional to the amount of capital they have seized. There they clearly showed – they will undress, despite the zeal. But the danger for Russia from this “sixth column” is very great, they are too close – or directly at the source of decision-making. In addition, they can slow down or distort the implementation of even the right decisions. And this may be the most important (and perhaps underestimated) danger.
    Of course, we are also waiting for the correction of tasks and their implementation for a more adequate assessment of the situation around Ukraine. But the overall picture and prospects are much more serious.

    If you look at the situation as a whole, it is already obvious that the main task is by no means in Ukraine, its territory is just a battlefield. The territory where the war with the united West is unfolding. The West found fools for the war with Russia and fed a rabid dog out of them.

    One should not delude oneself that his intervention is not yet total. Weapons are already being delivered to U. by 8-10 aircraft every day. In fact, NATO military personnel are already fighting against us, the Air Force and satellites are already fully providing intelligence, supplies of equipment, equipment and small arms for the Armed Forces of Ukraine have become on stream, and heavy weapons are on the way. Both politicians and the population of Western countries are already ready for a full-scale war against Russia. And total aggression against Russians (including on the territory of Western countries) is already underway.

    Previously, they were held back by fear of imminent retribution. And now they are comforting themselves with the fact that Russia has been unable to cope with the Kiev regime for a month and a half (although NATO expected the capture of Kyiv in 72 hours). And our humanity in the West is perceived only (and nothing else) as a weakness. They simply do not understand how you can sacrifice the lives of your soldiers to save the civilian population of a foreign state. Especially when the APU kills its own inhabitants, incl. rocket strikes. And in response to the seen weakness and indecision, they will sharply increase their efforts, incl. military

    In fact, we are no longer talking about the results of the operation in Ukraine or the victory over Kiev – today everything is already much more serious. The question is much tougher, no less tough than in the Great Patriotic War. It’s about the victory – or defeat of Russia as a whole. War has already been officially declared on us, and all Russians have already been outlawed. Defeat in the war is an unconditional subsequent dismemberment of the country (albeit not immediately). Moreover, the question is not just about the existence of Russia as a country, but about the existence of Russians in general.
    Let’s be honest to the end. How the Russians will be treated in the event of a defeat and the inevitable dismemberment of Russia has already been very clearly shown by the attitude towards our prisoners in Ukraine. Bandera’s people have extensive experience in both torture and sophisticated methods of murder. It will not just end with murders – there will be mass terror, torture and concentration camps.

    1. So much here to unpack.

      “Ukraine, its territory is just a battlefield.”

      Read that over and think- how would I feel if someone was saying that exact thing about Russia.

      No. Ukraine is country where people live.
      Roughly 2/3rds of the children of Ukraine have been displaced from their homes, according to the United Nations

    2. “dismemberment of Russia” That is pure delusion. You miss some important facts. Nobody wants parts of Russia. Nobody wants to move to Russia. Now nobody even wants to buy Russian oil or gas if they have any choice.

      But most importantly of all; nothing the west has done or threatened to do and nothing that Ukraine has done or threatened to do has justified the invasion of Ukraine, the terror campaign implemented in that invasion, or the behavior of individual Russian soldiers in that invasion.

      “there will be mass terror, torture and concentration camps.” That is called projection. You accuse others of acting as you do. Who in today’s world has more experience with perpetrating mass terror, torture and concentration camps than Russians? You forgot to mention poisoning people as a political act.

      1. Opritov is a nothing in my book. I have the history of having both both parents, all 4 grandparents, and 3 aunts and uncles migrate from Latvia as the Russians forced them out with nowhere to go but east into Poland and through the Auschwitz lager system, fortunately everyone coming out intact and eventually to the USA after the war ended. The alternative would have been Stalin’s favorite resort destination of Siberia. A few days ago I found out that a 3rd-cousin of mine died in Tomsk,Siberia.

    4. Alexander,
      in my lifetime the USA has made a two huge mistakes along the lines of what your are describing as the Russian rationalization for war, and many smaller such mistakes as well.

      One was the invasion of VietNam, and the other was the invasion of Iraq.
      Both of these were made under false assumptions and false understanding of the world beyond our border. And the stories were told, and ‘facts’ constructed over time and in such a way as to convince enough of the country to jump on the war train.

      That is exactly the way your story looks. The idea that Russia was under any kind of threat from Ukraine is ludicrous. But he has you believing it. It is simply a pretext for trying to reconstruct the Soviet Union.

      “the inevitable dismemberment of Russia”
      Just bizarre.

        1. Sure- put that on the list. Its a long list. i just gave the two biggest and most blatant examples.
          There could a whole website devoted to these kind of issues.
          In the here and now, we have an optional tragedy.
          Ukrainian people want to be Russian no more than Vietnamese people wanted to be occupied by any foreign power.
          Both are examples of grave errors.
          People in many countries will be severely impoverished/hungry as a result of Putins
          expansionist fantasy.

          1. Hi Hickory,

            “People in many countries will be severely impoverished/hungry as a result of Putins expansionist fantasy.”

            And keeping in mind what Eulenspiegel is pointing out about propaganda………….

            My countless ill educated and scared neighbors who vote for trump type government are blaming rising food prices HERE on Biden and the Democrats.

            People, even the best educated people, are extremely prone to believe what they want to believe about any subject or topic outside their immediate area of expertise….. assuming they have an area of expertise.

            Even people with advanced university degrees are entirely susceptible to believing just about any sort of bullshit imaginable…… so long as it’s consistent with their fears and desires.

            1. I´m sad to say that in my opinion, around 67,3 to 96,8% of the populace, regardless of origin and/or education are idiots. And sheep too…
              Edit: the general public I mean, the range here is a bit better (i.e a lower percentage score)
              But the jury is still out

    5. Just the same rhetoric as Adolf: Surrounded by enemies, conquering the world is only self-defense.

      But the most diletantic invasion of the last 30 years, at least for a self called superpower against a minor opponent.

      In the first hour of the war all military installations should be hit with rockets, after this a few days “Shock and awe” with air power and rockets on MILITARY INSTALLATIONS. The position of these should be completely known, that’s the job of the secret service.

      If they don’t capitulate then, make a Blitzkrieg against the capital first. Tanks, Helis, attack planes, drones and infantery to secure the replenishment routes. And double replenishment calculated than needed.

      You just had to carbon copy some operations from the USA – they managed their invasions, losing the peace after this. Not that I like these invasions.

      And by the way: nobody is insane enough to invade Russia or throwing some bombs on it. Really nobody – it’s pure imagination. Everyone on the world has some terrorist attacks, but that’s what secret service is for to avoid most of them.

      Old Aunt NATO is now waked up and kissed back to life – it was sleeping peaceful here. Some plans like building a new tank in 20 years – yeah very dangerous.
      Everyone is now buying military stuff, you managed it where Trump failed completely.

      1. Who owns the media, he owns the world. I understand that I can’t convince you. I will state my point of view on what is happening.
        I believe that the media in the West and in the Russian Federation are biased and paint a picture that is beneficial to governments. They often lie, increase emphasis or do not notice facts and events. It is necessary to critically evaluate messages based on: who benefits from this?
        For example:
        1. In Bucha in Ukraine, the Russian military, in order to distinguish local citizens from the Ukrainian fascist razedka, asked the citizens to tie white armbands on their sleeves (the fascists wore blue armbands). After the Russians left, fascist intelligence came to the city and killed everyone who was suspected of cooperation. There are records where the Russians, before leaving, asked famous people to leave with them, but they remained and were killed. There is a video of the Nazis about the cleansing of Bucha, where they ask the leader: can I shoot those who do not have a bandage? answer: you can.
        (in the video about the atrocity there are people with white armbands)
        2. During the NATO operation to liberate Kuwait, the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States lied that she witnessed the “atrocities” of Hussein’s soldiers, although she did not leave the United States. They did not remember this later.
        3. Russians do not shoot from artillery and do not bomb the cities of Ukraine, if they do not storm the city where the Ukrainian military is defending.
        Explosions in Kyiv in multi-storey buildings are the result of unsuccessful launches of Ukrainian air defense missiles, Klitschko showed fragments that were identified as elements of the warhead of the Buk missile. The media in the West will not write about it.
        4. The war in Ukraine did not start in 2022, but in 2014 after Ukrainian troops began shelling residential buildings in Donetsk. Donetsk killed and wounded civilians. I’m sure the Western media will not write about it.
        I used to treat Putin badly, but over time I changed my attitude because, under Yeltsin, the drunkard, taxes on oligarchs were extremely low, and crime was high. Putin raised taxes, the lives of ordinary citizens improved. Crime almost disappeared. I consider the outbreak of war in Ukraine a big mistake , but nothing can be changed. The parties are ready to raise the stakes to the limit. I’m afraid of a nuclear war.
        On the mood in the Russian Federation:
        -Putin’s support is very big.
        – tolerance has disappeared, I would not dare to write on a car: “no war”, a month ago there were many such inscriptions, shouting: “glory to Ukraine” is life-threatening.
        My forecast for the development of events is extremely pessimistic:
        Putin will not be allowed to get out of the situation saving face, but he is ready to raise the stakes to the limit …..
        More: here is a video with an attempt to try on the sides, where a candidate for the presidency of Ukraine asks for the preservation of the Russian language and a federal structure for the east:
        PS In the West, as I understand it, people also do not think contrary to conventional wisdom. And this most “generally accepted opinion” comes from all irons and is established
        at the center of decision making.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cke6sUXovLY

        1. In the West, the government does not control the media, you assume the western media is as biased as in Russia, but in advanced western countries the independent media has not been shut down as it has in Russia.

          If this does not tell you something, then you are not worth listening too.

          You have set up a false equivalency between Russian media and Western media.

          I agree the western media may be biased (there ore no objective humans anywhere). There is a difference between a slight bias and outright falsehood. Intelligent people can tell the difference.

          1. Yea Dennis in the west corporations control the media narrative and autocratic countries usually its desperate kings and dictators. That is the difference.

            I wouldn’t even consider the U.S as a country. It is more like a giant trickle down corporation (from wall street to main street). The enforcement arm of wall street is the U.S military aimed to expand corporate interests.

            The question is which one will crumble first. The neoliberal corporate west or the autocratic “axis of evil”. As it always is with humans, ideological warfare is cyclic. This is just another cycle. For us peasants we can only wish it won’t be fought with nuclear weapons.

            1. Not the way i see it Mike.
              You see the ‘west’ as a trickle down corporation, and yes there is plenty of truth in that.
              But it is certainly not the whole picture.
              There is some freedom/free will to fight back against tyranny with independent action, speech, publication, and removal of leadership, legal recourse against corporations, and voting with ‘dollar’.
              You might see these factors as trivial, but that comes from a perspective of never having lived under a totalitarian system.
              I see the difference as huge, while it lasts.

              As you say, there is often a cyclic nature of control in places that have voting.
              In the US we will likely soon embrace autocracy on a much more serious basis than the most recent flirtation, as people grasp at false promises of the good old days of prosperity, religious and racial supremacy. And as we have seen recently in this broken democracy, 2/2 of the most recent republican presidential winners took the presidency without winning the actual vote. That is a form of tyranny.

              btw- Putin is not worried about the military threat of NATO, after all without some kind of severe provocation like a nuclear attack from Russia, NATO will not gather itself to attack Russia.
              He is worried about having democracy on the doorstep. That is the threat to the Russian state, as he sees it. And on this, he is correct. But not justified.

            2. Mike, I often read about the axis of evil, dictatorship, autocracy and tyranny in Russia. Perhaps these assessments are right, but in my own life I do not feel any oppression and prohibitions, except for laws that are similar to the laws of Western democracy.
              Everything that concerns corruption, which is undoubtedly present, outrages and dislikes, I don’t have to face it in everyday life
              In the USSR it was different during military service, while studying at school, the institute was
              political pursuits studying the works of Lenin,
              about how unemployment is in the west, how dissidents are oppressed and about US military operations in Vietnam and the like. It was like a religion and this propaganda did not achieve its goals.

          2. Thanks Denis for your reply.
            “In the West, the government does not control the media, you assume the western media is as biased as in Russia, but in advanced western countries the independent media has not been shut down as it has in Russia.”
            —-
            Yes, of course, in the West, the government does not control the media. But the media leadership has some political preferences and selects authors, reporters who have political opinions on fundamental issues that correspond to the media owners, most often they take the generally accepted point of view.
            Yes, you are right, the opposition media closed in Russia, this is due to the war in Ukraine. I think that with the end of the war, the opposition will be difficult to return. But imagine if during World War 2 in the United States there would be a press that condemned participation in the war and justified Hitler, this it would be possible?
            _____
            “I agree the western media may be biased (there ore no objective humans anywhere). There is a difference between a slight bias and outright falsehood. Intelligent people can tell the difference.”
            —–
            Outright lies? – I categorically disagree. Believe me, I have information from various independent sources, including in the territory controlled by the Ukrainian government, it is difficult to hide the ongoing events today. Any information should be critically evaluated. Bias is inevitable and excusable.
            Sorry, but I will not be able to answer, until May there will be no access to the Internet.

    6. How do you engage in rational discussion with a paranoid trapped in his own delusions?

      1. It’s an example what a lot of the world population thinks about this confict.

        In Russia, China, India and much more Russia was attacked by the NATO and is defending itself on the ukrainian ground which belongs to them. Otherwise NATO troups would storm Moskwa in a few years and convert the Kreml into a disney park or something like this.

        What propaganda can do I have seen the last 2 years. The more TV people watched, the more fear of Corona. The more abstinent ones kept more cool and realistic.

        Oh my god I could get infected with Omicron. My 7 year old has to wear masks all the day … and what did she do? Barricaded at home and watche the TV panic program.

        That’s why only the internet affine tech youth in Russia is Putinophob. They don’t watch the TV the last 20 years with all the propaganda. Same in China.

        1. Eulenspiegel,

          I believe you’re dead on.

          Anybody here in the USA who doubts what you’re saying should take an hour to go someplace nice and quiet and meditate on just how successful the long running trump/ Republican/ fascist propaganda campaign has been here in the USA……… where anybody willing to think a little has access to unlimited news and information from the opposite camp by simply clicking a button or two on his phone or computer.

      2. “How do you engage in rational discussion with a paranoid trapped in his own delusions?”

        Apparently the only way people could get through to him was by offering him either personal enrichment or fame.
        That is all Trump cared about.

    7. Alex, Why are you posting this bullshit on a peak oil website? Are you that desperate for an audience?

      I’m GTFO until this shit passes. Bye.

  15. Yes, lithium prices are up 5x in 5 years. But lithium-ion battery prices are coming down!

    1. From a commercial and production perspective I would say the raw material price hikes are eating up the ongoing production improvements.

      This reverse this year, prices going up because of even more expansive raw materials.

    2. Lithium-ion batteries are more than big chunks of lithium. The name confuses a lot of people, but there actually isn’t much lithium in a lithium-ion battery

      1. The price for lithiumcarbonat soared, it’s now at round about 40$ / Kwh battery capacity. Nickel and Cobalt come on the top, they aren’t cheap either.

        It’s now at 78$ / Kg, lat year it was 6.8$.

        So it’s time to build a few more mines.

  17. Moskva had 3 different air defense systems, each with there own radar. It was destroyed by two hits from Neptune cruise missiles. A drone was used to occupy the ships defenses.

    This is most likely the largest mass-casualty event that the Russian Armed Forces have suffered In Ukraine.

    Just yesterday Zelensky unveiled a stamp commemorating the sinking of Moskva.

    1. If this war goes according to the plan as stated by Russia than their aim seems to be to demilitarize Russia. Ukraine on the other hand now control more arms than ever before. One of their biggest suppliers is Russian soldiers fleeing the battlefield.

    2. All Morse and Cipher signals from Moskva seem to have come to an end. I’m 99.99999% sure she is on the bottom of the Black Sea.

        1. The funny thing is:

          One side claims to have sunk the ship with rockets it fired on the ship.

          And the other side claims to have almost sunk the ship due to own incompetence leading a ship in a war, ahm sorry “special operation”.

          1. Truth is the first casualty of war . Not surprised at all with the claims and counter claims .

            1. Another false assumption- to think that there was truth before war.

              btw- Russia reports the Moskva has sunk

          2. If true, Moskva would be the biggest ship sunk in combat since World War II.

        2. Perhaps it’s past time for Russia to fire some Admirals? Or for even better results, they should fire their President.

    3. So if Ukraine is defending itself well against Russia, that sort of undercuts the narrative that Russia is this huge bully just maliciously invading a neighbor to idk expand into an empire or whatever. If Ukraine has been increasing its defensive capacity while simultaneously increasing its ties with the West, it actually shows Russia was correct in seeing Ukraine as an emerging threat on its border. In terms of pre-emptive war, this case certainly holds up better than the 100s of military interventions and coups led by the United States post-WWII… there, that should be a sufficient kick to the bee hive.

      1. Twocats- that argument does not follow logic.
        Just because Ukraine has not completely collapsed under invasion yet in no way justifies the invasion by Russia. Your notion is faulty justification.
        Russia has not been under any threat of invasion by Ukraine.
        Russia just wanted to capture parts of the other country that they wanted for themselves.
        They see it as their land, just as the Ottomans used to see it as their land.

        Using your logic, the US invasion of Canada will be justified since the US is worried about the impending invasion of US by Canada. And there are so many Canadians who speak English and are not thrilled by their current government. All we intend to take to take is British Columbia and Alberta provinces. No one should mind.

  18. https://news.mit.edu/2022/thermal-heat-engine-0413

    This could turn out to be something of a game changer, if such a power plant can be built at an affordable cost.

    Using concentrated sunlight to heat the storage medium should be easily doable.

    On the other hand, if it works well, it means overnight storage of solar power can be a done deal.

    The necessary materials seem to be readily available at reasonable costs.

    There are plenty of places with full sun almost every day within easy transmission distance of major population centers using HVDC transmission lines.

    1. More than 1900 Celsius is much – you can use only special, expensive, materials. Can’t even use steel.

      This will never be cheap. That’s why thermosolar power plants are much more expensive than solar cell based – they are only used for the storing, not the generating part.

      1. Yeah, that 1900-2300C temperature requirement seems a little hard to swallow. Maybe less efficient options at more easily handled temperatures?

        1. The heat is extremely high, no doubt, but this is not a problem for storage medium such as sand, etc.
          And it’s easy to insulate huge amounts of such materials, due to the way the numbers scale. Volume goes up cubed, surface area squared, etc.

          So the one place you would need really good materials would be to transport the heat into and out of the storage medium.

          This might be a really hard nut to crack, or maybe not. I’m not acquainted with materials used at such high heats.

  19. Major news network has it that the Russians had to abandon their flagship over the last couple of hours.

    There’s a relevant hillbilly saying.

    It’s not the size of the dog that wins the fight. It’s the size of the fight in the dog.
    The Ukrainians are apparently right on up there in the world of junk yard dogs….. the meanest kind of all.

    There are bigger dogs of course.

    1. My wild ass guess is that by the time 2030 gets here the crop failures will have become more than 5 times likely.

      To borrow from OFM’s discussion above, just another example of people, even educated ones, choosing to believe what they want to believe.

      1. Believe vs Guess
        https://wikidiff.com/guess/believe

        Famine isn’t an extreme event, it’s the predictable result of changes to NH mid-latitude summer circulation secondary to Arctic amplification.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05256-8

        https://www.carbonbrief.org/jet-stream-is-climate-change-causing-more-blocking-weather-events

        You don’t need a PhD in pattern recognition to see where this is going.

        “On the weather depends the harvest, on the harvest depends everything” ~ apocryphal

        Thanks for coming out Tips.

      2. It’s useful to distinguish between beliefs based on an understanding of science and technology, and beliefs based on culture or opinions.

        I know plenty of people who believe that there’s ample and easily affordable oil to last indefinitely……….. these being people who have never put even one full evening into serious study of the oil industry. Their OPINION is based on what they have heard or read and sourced from people with skin in the game…….. the fossil fuel industry itself, and right wing politicians who are opposed to renewables because leftish leaning politicians are in favor.

        A lot of these people are well educated……… in fields that have next to nothing to do with the physical sciences. So they don’t know any more about geology, or evolution, or climate, than the cleaning lady, even though they may be the owner of a large business, lol.

        Then there are people who are ENTITLED to their opinion(S) by virtue of the fact that they DO have some understanding of the science and technology involved in understanding a given issue.

        The regulars here are well informed in respect to science and technology, and we understand and KNOW that the world wide climate is at very high risk of going NUTS on us, possibly within the next few years……. and almost certainly within a few decades, given the current course of history.

        Something, maybe the fact that you’re new here, leads me to think that JUST maybe you’re trolling.

        1. Hi OFM, thanks for chiming in. With regards to famine I like to consider some risk management thought exercises. One I like to play is called “what happens to me if I’m wrong”. For example, if I prepare for a famine and I’m wrong to do so then I will suffer little, other than perhaps some lost opportunity costs, and have a good food cache and garden. A trip to the local food bank might be in order so I can lighten my load. If I don’t prepare for a famine and I’m wrong to do so I will suffer much and burden others.

          1. ‘risk management thought exercises’
            Very important point.
            Our civilization fails miserably on this basic function.
            Risk management on food supply, energy supply, infrastructure, emergency response and medical care should all be extremely high priority, including as much redundancy and upgrading as can be afforded.
            Yet we do very little of this.

            1. The next El Niño is gonna be a stinger. I wonder if dry arid areas will be hit hard. It’s impossible to know…. lol sarc :/

    1. That is solid work, and the summary is based on this research article-
      https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac22c1/meta

      Bottomline- the trends in climate dramatically increase the risk of staple grain harvest failures over the next few decades.

      Billions of people do not have the resources and infrastructure to import/purchase replacement foods from outside their region, and already run on a local, low meat, season to season system.

  28. How long will it take, in terms of legalities such as patents, for new tech such as that used by Musk’s Boring Company to go mainstream?

    Maybe this question would be better phrased by asking how likely it is that potential competitors can figure out ways to bypass relevant patents, etc.

    I’m guessing that it will be at least four or five years before The Boring Company can do enough jobs to really even get the attention of potential competitors….. who will be just like the conventional car companies……… waiting for somebody else to show them the way.

  29. WAY OFF RESERVATION but worth a couple of minutes!

    Sometimes it’s worthwhile to point out some every day realities that escape almost everybody.

    I have known at least half a dozen people over the years who would have lived over a medical emergency if they had been loaded into a car and hustled to the ER instead of waiting for an ambulance.

    A couple of them were close kin. One of my sisters died on the way to the hospital in an ambulance that took over an hour to show up. The ride, driving legally in a car, would have been only twenty minutes. She would have survived no problem at all, driven there in the family car, no question at all.

    I copied this from Quora. It was posted by an old cop who worked as a fireman and emt as well as being a cop.

    ”
    I found that despite my pride the best thing I could do as a Medic was just get them to the ER as fast as possible many times. “Load and Go” over “Stay and Play” as Paramedics say in their slang. The average Ambulance in America takes 8 minutes to arrive but in many many places its more like 15 or 20. If your loved ones life is on the line do the mental math. Can you get them to the ER before an Ambulance can get here? If someone I know is dying they’re getting thrown in a vehicle and driven to the closest ER turning corners on two tires in almost every conceivable circumstance. This is what Cops do when other Cops get hit. I have never seen or heard of a shot/stabbed St Louis City Cop arriving at the Trauma Center in an Ambulance. The nearest Cop throws you in the back seat and then does some of the scariest driving you will ever see or hear tell of to get you to the ER. If Grandpa suddenly has chest pain and trouble breathing…don’t walk him to the bedroom…walk him to the front seat of the car. You will be halfway to getting him to the ER by the time you could have finished describing what is going on and where to 911, let alone waiting for them to be notified, get to the rig and drive to you (then talk a lot and finally drive him to where?….the ER you could have been at 10 minutes after the event started instead of 45 minutes with EMS). Plus this way you get to do a dramatic Emergency Room entrance as you burst through the sliding glass doors and loudly proclaim “I NEED A DOCTOR!”

    REALITY.

    1. Great stuff OFM, FWIW- an O2 tank and a non-rebreather mask can really help out in a pinch. All folks should get some basic EMT and learn how to use O2. I’m rural. Part of our Emergency Response Plan is that if we call an ambulance we load up and start heading towards where it’s coming from, if we can; we’d link up on the road side about 1/2 way between us and them and cross load.

    2. This is utter, goddamn bullshit.

      I worked as a licensed EMT for 15 years in a rural area of Maine. The arrival of the ambulance is fucking irrelevant!

      If Grandpa suddenly has chest pain and trouble breathing…don’t walk him to the bedroom…walk him to the front seat of the car. You will be halfway to getting him to the ER by the time you could have finished describing what is going on and where to 911,

      And that’s where the poor son of a bitch will die, halfway to the hospital.

      There are first responders with jump kits that can make it to the scene in private vehicles within a matter of minutes. They are scattered throughout town, so the chance that one lives nearby is high. They can assess the situation immediately, get backup help crews on the way, administer high flow O2, initiate CPR, stanch bleeding, whatever is immediately required for the patient.

      Crews licensed as Intermediates or Paramedics can intubate on scene, push meds, have AEDs ready to go. Loading the patient into a private vehicle and trying to make the 45 minute drive to the hospital in Portland—without anyone in the vehicle to immediately assist the patient–is fucking homicide!

      Here is just one example: A patient goes into anaphylactic shock. Their epi pen fails to deploy. As the patient goes into respiratory distress, should you load them into a fucking car, or should you wait for a medic to arrive with a whole kit of meds and airway equipment? Oh, you would rather try to drive with your loved one gasping in distress beside you??

      The post in Quora is egregious bullshit and the exact reason the Internet is a curse.

      1. Mike B , you just ripped the mask of the “The post in Quora is egregious bullshit and the exact reason the Internet is a curse. ” . Thanks .

      2. “There are first responders with jump kits that can make it to the scene in private vehicles within a matter of minutes.”

        Sure. Maybe in a very few places. A VERY FEW places.

        This is about as ILL INFORMED OR IGNORANT a statement as I’ve run across in a long time in this forum.

        My sister died in an ambulance , which took fucking FOREVER to show up.

        The local rescue squad is well trained, and dedicated …… but they couldn’t get out of bed, and to the fire station, and to her house, any quicker.

        Her physician, and virtually everybody involved, agrees that she would have been ok had she been put in a car and transported that way.

        Now it IS a good idea to know some stuff, to have some training, and have some equipment on hand. I have some training of this sort myself, and I have oxygen on hand and accessible within a couple of minutes. I have a very well stocked first aid kit. I know how to do CPR.

        It would be great to have lots of people with SOME gear, and SOME training, all thru the local community, everywhere.

        We DON’T.

        It would also be great if we were to have a European style health care system.
        WE DON’T.

        BUT THESE PEOPLE WITH THIS TRAINING AND THIS GEAR FUCKING DON’T EXIST……… except maybe in a few places.

        If your local reality is that an ambulance is thirty minutes away, and it’s twenty minutes to thirty minutes to the hospital, put Granpa in the fucking car and haul ass.

        We do have something, locally, which is rare, home visits from a physician for my ninety three year old Dad……. and he takes time to talk about community issues and hypothetical situations.

        When I mentioned this to him, prior to posting it, he says that when he gets that call, and he TAKES the calls, if you’re one of his patients, he routinely advises heading for the ER IMMEDIATELY if the patient is showing signs of stroke, heart attack, etc, but in the case of accidents such as falls, it’s usually better to wait for the ambulance.

        Maybe half of his patients, out in our very rural area with only volunteer emergency services for the most part, are going to be waiting at least twenty minutes and often an hour, for an ambulance.

        If there’s a multi car accident or other such emergency, it might be even longer.

        “The post in Quora is egregious bullshit and the exact reason the Internet is a curse.”

        Nah. The real problem is that some of us are unable to think as well as a bright second grader.

        1. The idea of local first responders sounds very nice, but…how do you communicate with them? Local EMS is usually a 911 call, but local first responders? Ham radio? Twitter? A web site where they register for 24 hour availability? A phone app? Community meetings and a signup sheet?

          ??

    3. It depends on where you live in relation to the hospital and the quality of your local ambulance service, as well as the nature of the emergency.
      Hard to make a blanket statement on this.
      But yes, consider rolling to the hospital as quick as possible if you think you can get there before an ambulance would arrive to your site.

      1. Quite right Hick. Much depends on the medical problem encountered, one’s skill & equipment in dealing with it, and one’s location in relationship to the incoming ambulance and final hospital destination. For me it’s rather simple. The ambulance comes to me from a building next to the hospital, which are both 45 min away. Not a lot of ambiguity. We also have here a medical kit with AED & O2, and first responder types about or very close by. For a lot of folks in a lot of situations, especially urban and sub urban folks, it’s better to stay put.

  30. Methane Feedback Loop Beyond Humans’ Ability to Control May Have Begun—NOAA

    methane feedback loop that is beyond humans’ ability to control may have begun, scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have said.

    Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas emitted into the atmosphere from both human activities and natural processes. It is the second biggest contributor to climate change after carbon dioxide.

    According to the NOAA, methane is 25 times more powerful at trapping heat in the atmosphere compared to carbon dioxide. While it remains in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than carbon dioxide, it has a huge impact on the rate of climate change.

    Research published by the NOAA now shows that 2021 saw the largest annual increase in atmospheric methane levels since measurements began in 1983.

    Xin Lan, a research scientist at the NOAA, told Newsweek that after 2006, the majority of methane emissions produced were caused by natural wetlands and man-made emissions. Natural wetlands produce methane when organic matter decays , while and man-made emissions are caused by livestock, waste and landfills.

    It is difficult for scientists to determine which emissions come from which source. However, natural methane production is accelerated by rain and varying temperatures, which climate change is already causing.

    1. This is why the concept of a carbon budget is misleading. Over a couple of hundred years for carbon dioxide what matters is not how fast but the ultimate total that is emitted, as it lasts in the atmosphere (albeit in dynamic equilibrium) for so long. For methane, however, the rate of emissions is key. Very slow releases just get destroyed as they are emitted and never build up, but accelerating rates or sudden pulses mean that the releases overwhelms the rate of destruction by the hydroxyl ion and the concentration increases. In past events slow (at least relative to now) warming that led to gradual methane releases were unimportant compared to the CO2, but now the methane is coming so fast it may start to almost as important as the CO2 as a green house gas. In these circumstances the important number is the instantaneous heating effect of the methane, which may be over one hundred times that of CO2, not the usually quoted figure of 20 to 25. Even after a pulse the concentration may decay but the warming damage would already have occurred, which is especially important if there is a feedback mechanism where higher temperatures can lead to more releases. There is also evidence that methane levels are starting to overwhelm the hydroxyl free radicals in the atmosphere so the rate of destruction will decline and the half life get longer (another feedback leading to ever higher concentrations and warming effect).

    2. Paul Beckwith has a good (but concerning) video about the paper that the article above is based on:

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

      He says that this line in the Newsweek article is bullshit:

      “According to the NOAA, methane is 25 times more powerful at trapping heat in the atmosphere compared to carbon dioxide.”

      Averaged over 100 years, it’s more like 34 times as potent as CO2.

      Over twenty years, 86 times as potent. That’s some scary shit.

      Don’t believe it? See the paper Paul cites.

      2. Methane is only that bad of a greenhouse gas if it is released into the atmosphere. If you instead burn it up for energy it is not very bad.

        1. Jonathan, the reason people are concerned about it is because there is a lot of leakage of unburned methane into the atmosphere. Swamps, and agriculture/livestock, but also now major sources from
          -leakage from oil and gas production and transport
          -leakage from melting permafrost and melting arctic shallow seabed

          Consider the last source. The warming in the last 20-30 has started to cause a lot of permafrost and seabed melting, which allows more and more methane release (which then causes more warming). They call that a positive feedback loop. This is starting to become a big deal now.

          1. I know all that, I am just saying if the world actually had rational energy policies, we could use methane for more good (economic development) than what is happening with it right now.

            2. Jonathan- what do you have in mind?
              “I am just saying if the world actually had rational energy policies,”

        2. Thank you, Johnathan. I’ll tell my cows to fart into a bottle.

          And let’s drain all the swamps.

  32. “Carbon capture question: energy released when burned versus energy to recapture?
    I am looking to estimate how much energy is released when a a unit of fossil fuel is burned versus how much energy it would take to sequester the CO2 that was released. …it seems that at the end of the day, entropy ensures it will take more energy to recapture the carbon than the amount released when it was burned (oxidized), so not sure how carbon capture can work from an energetics perspective”

    Anyone have solid info on the answer to this question, it would be appreciated.
    I know there is lots of on-going research and niche applications for carbon sequestration,
    but I have the sense that it is all a net thermodynamic loss,
    and therefore an example of green-washing and an exhaustive exercise of running in place, or perhaps running backwards?

    Comment- between carbon sequestration, cryptocurrency mechanisms, cloud data storage, metaverse life, water desalinization, cyberwarfare, travel to temporarily escape ones local reality, and increased air conditioning loads to combat global warming….we are going to need a lot more energy than we will have.

    1. Hic —

      Carbon sequestration certainly works and is cost effective, once installed and paid for. So do (relatively) efficient air conditioners. The question is — priorities. Is the average family struggling with rapidly rising food costs and expensive gas to fill their vehicle(s) going to be happy paying more taxes to pay for these systems. Among my neighbours I hear a lot of discussions about the “unbelievable” cost of groceries, almost none about global warming and ways to combat it.

    2. There’s a difference between direct air capture and sequestration from a CO2 rich exhaust gas, but I don’t have figures for either. I think the holy grail is something like artificial photosynthesis where the power would come from the sun. For more conventional methods like absorption into sodium hydroxide I’d agree that it’s pretty difficult to see how the energy to prepare the reagent is much less than the energy from the original combustion but for osmotic separation and then pumping underground I’d have thought it would be quite a bit less (physical processes are generally much less energetic than chemical ones) but still significant maybe around 25 to 40% when everything included but that’s just a guess.

    3. In many places, new wind and solar generation is cheaper than new coal or gas generation. In some places, new wind and solar is cheaper than the operating cost of existing coal or gas. If you add the cost of sequestration, new FF generation is going to very hard to justify almost everywhere, and I suspect that retrofitting will be hard to justify in most places.

      And, of course, efficiency is much, much cheaper in new construction, and most existing structures can be cost effectively made much more efficient.

      Sequestration is very low on the priority list, and is mostly a desperate attempt by FF producers to hold back the transition away from FF.

      1. Nick, I think that all of the solar and wind etc energy that is generated will be needed for basic living purposes and replacing the depleting fossil fuels.
        I don’ think there will be enough for a use like sequestration.
        But many people- fossil industries, governments, and citizens concerned about global warming are lining up to promote the attempt.
        The hotter it gets, the more clamor there will be to use energy for the purpose.

    4. Hi Hickory,
      I’m not an engineer, but judging from my extensive reading in this area, it’s very unlikely that we will ever REMOVE carbon from the atmosphere……. using machinery…….using less than four or five to twenty times as much energy as was UTILIZED ( don’t forget a coal fired plant is typically forty percent efficient, losses along the way in the grid, etc. ICE engines typically no better than thirty percent at best, etc. ) rather than RELEASED by burning the fossil fuel initially. Don’t forget the pollution associated with mining or drilling and transporting and processing coal or oil, etc.

      The one bright spot seems to be that we may actually have energy enough to do it…… eventually…… if the wind and solar industries reach their potential.

      We can get TEN dollars worth of BANG out of any dollar spent on carbon capture by spending that same dollar on energy efficiency, conservation, and changing our lifestyles.

      The shit is already in the fan, and it seems entirely likely to me that we’re headed for a hard overshoot crash that utterly rules out the possibility of ever spending so much in manpower and material on cleaning up the atmosphere.

      But I also think some people in some places have a fair shot at pulling thru the bottleneck while still maintaining a functional industrial economy…. given some luck and good leadership.

      1. “The one bright spot seems to be that we may actually have energy enough to do it [carbon capture]…… eventually…… if the wind and solar industries reach their potential.”

        Theoretically I suppose. But i don’t think we will get anywhere close to that status in the next few decades during which CO2 will pumped into atmosphere at continued high rate.
        Peak Fossil Combustion may occur in 10-15 years and begin to fall significantly by 2050, but cheap non-fossil extra energy is very unlikely to be part of the scenario by then.

        With that in mind, I think carbon capture is something like a pipe dream. Falsehood in advertising.
        If people really want to keep global warming from getting more severe, its got to be
        -stopping the burning of fossil a soon as they can or are willing to
        -geoengineering of the atmospheric

        Considering that, a much hotter planet is the most probable outcome, by far.

        Policy-wise, I wouldn’t spend a dime on carbon capture. Instead, a carbon tax with revenues going to perpetual energy source collection (wind/solar) and other replacement energy and efficiency measures.

        1. Hickory,

          I agree a focus on carbon capture makes no sense in the short to medium term. The focus should be on minimizing carbon emissions and increased energy efficiency. A Carbon tax is an excellent idea, perhaps a carbon fee and dividend approach would be more palatable. Removal of carbon from the atmosphere should only be a focus if the World reaches a point of excess energy from non carbon emitting sources. Remember that once the carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, the atmospheric concentration will decline very slowly with a half life of approximately 10,000 years, even with zero net carbon emissions by humans from all sources including land use change. After we reach a point where there is excess energy produced that can be used for carbon sequestration (after 2050 or so) pursuing a carbon sequestration strategy by using any excess energy produced may be a viable option.

            1. Paul remember that some of the carbon emitted goes back into land and ocean sinks (roughly half as I remember). If we can get back to the level of 1955 or so for atmospheric concentrations that may be adequate, some reductions can occur through land use change (allowing forests to regrow) and eventually we may see a demographic transition so that World population falls allowing some land to return to its natural state.

              Some changes in agricultural practices may help, green cement that absorbs CO2, and some geothermal processes that sequester carbon.

              Not a small task, better to reduce emissions as fast as is feasible, but that by itself may not be enough. Perhaps planting trees will be enough.

  33. The company 44.01 has a plan for removing CO2 from the atmosphere that seems to have a process with low energy requirements but the energy costs of moving massive volumes of air to remove the CO2 is not trivial.

    https://4401.earth/

    1. I’d like to see an independent complete energy/CO2 analysis of these type of proposals.
      Hard to judge the worthiness without it.
      I am a skeptic on this, since it is always harder to go uphill than downhill.

      “We leverage heat, solar energy, and biofuel to accomplish our process in a carbon-negative way. Our partner Wakud provides biofuel to run our decentralised operations at night. Wakud’s biofuel burns 86% less CO₂ than its fossil fuel counterpart, is more efficient and is produced through local circular economies,”

      1. Hickory,

        As wind and solar expand, they will reach a point where on windy days or very sunny summer days there will be much more energy produced than needed (this would be some time after 2040 and maybe not until 2050 in most advanced nations). The excess energy could be used to produce synthetic fuel or to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (or perhaps to remove the CO2 from the exhaust of power plants that use the synthetic fuel). To me that would be the logical use of this excess energy.

        There are also some research into using geothermal energy to sequester CO2.

        https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/combining-geothermal-energy-capture-with-geologic-carbon-dioxide-

        1. I don’t think we will achieve ‘excess’ energy for optional uses, like carbon capture.
          If we have moments of ‘excess’ energy, there will be many more compelling competing uses.
          That includes pumping water for energy storage or irrigation, desalinization, nitrogen fertilizer (ammonia) production, hydrogen production for transport, and other long duration energy storage mechanisms. These uses will be prioritized, as they will be in short supply. Perhaps severely short.

          1. Hickory,

            Perhaps you are correct, I caanot foresee what humans in the future will decide. If we want to eat, we may decide it is worth the expense to build more solar and utilize the excess energy to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. It is surely technically possible, if it will be done is up to people.

            Sometimes they do the right thing after all other possibilities are exhausted.

  34. Someday in the coming decade in US we may look back and wonder how and why we were so willing to yield a poorly functioning democracy to a poorly functioning autocracy.
    It is simply because so many citizens are gullible fools with historical and political IQ’s of less than 80 and a childish tribal affiliation controlled by white nationalism.

    “An expert on autocracy assesses how far America has slipped away from democracy..-
    Political violence is more likely than an actual civil war; a Republican takeover in November would be catastrophic but she remains heartened by the ability of American voters to “interrupt an autocratic personality who’s in the middle of his project;” and ballot box victories alone don’t stop autocrats but the law can. “It takes prosecution and conviction to deflate their personality cults,” Ben-Ghiat said. “That’s what it takes…Also, the midterms are so close. I do believe if [Republicans] capture Congress after the midterms, you always have to assume the worst with people who have been very open about wanting to wreck democracy. You have to realize that these people have left democracy, and nothing is off the table.”
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/16/history-shows-trump-personality-cult-end-00024941

    I do not hold any hope that [“It takes prosecution and conviction to deflate their personality cults,”]
    the law and courts will be a successful mechanism to restrain the rise of autocracy in this country.

    1. “Ban European flights and [petrol] car use in cities to hurt Putin”

      Its good practice for when depletion takes hold later in this decade, regardless of the current Putin invasion.

      As an aside, what is the current Las Vegas line on
      -the % of Ukrainian territory that Russia keeps after the ‘peace’ accords are signed next year
      -the % drop in Russian GDP in relation to the pre-invasion status, peak to trough
      -the date at which Russian oil production drops 20% from its pre-invasion peak
      -the decade during which sanctions against Russia related to its Ukrainian empire building campaign are eventually rescinded

    1. That only works if they ignore you, too.

      Most people change when they get an interview with the secret police and fall down the stairs.

    2. I really enjoyed that.

      I always wondered how Putin prevented people from turning against him and killing him ( how hard would it be to poison his tooth paste ).

      He creates a perimeter around himself, and he has designed things so that if HE goes down….YOU go down.

    1. I’d rather be stuck in a federal jail here in the USA than be in Egypt with no way out.

      There’s no way in HELL Egypt can actually pay for food imported on the grand scale barring a literal miracle.

      Any links to such a miracle will be appreciated, thanks in advance.

Comments are closed.