114 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, December 1”

  1. Some people are GungHo on nuclear power. The French have had good luck with it, so far.
    But if this turns out true it put a pretty big question mark on the infallibility of their work-

    “A design flaw in the reactor pressure vessel could be the cause of a problem that was made public in June at French company EDF’s jointly-owned nuclear power plant in China, a French non-governmental organization said, quoting a whistleblower.”

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2280903-how-serious-is-the-nuclear-power-plant-radiation-leak-in-china/

    1. No sympathy for nuclear power here, but the article talks about a fuel issue, not a RPV design flaw.

      And it is quite different.

      Fuel issues are commonplace, but detecting an RPV design flaw that leaks radioactive material from the core in an already operating NPP is a death sentence for Areva, and possibly the last nail in the nuclear industry coffin.

        1. One viewpoint (which I think probably makes sense) is that ANY flaw is a design flaw.

          If something goes wrong, anything…it’s related to the system design. The concept of “human error” or “operator error” doesn’t really make sense. Those concepts simply convey that a certain kind of error is built into the design, and is considered an acceptable risk.

          That’s where the concept of “fool proof” comes from: a design that eliminates operator error. It’s why the phrase “traffic accident” is being replaced by “crash”.

          So…is this an acceptable risk?

          1. My point is, if it is a defective fuel rod it is no biggie: the risk of health and enviromental damage is low and it can be dealt with. But if it is a vibration issue induced by the RPV design (AKA reactor design flaw) what is breaking the fuel rods, then all this line of vessels is compromised and should probably be shut down.

            If it is the later, and considering that China has made a considerable investment and that transparency is not their strong suit, they’ll probably hide it hoping that it doesn’t cause major issues. We’ll only know for certain when something really bad happens.

            1. This is one of my concerns with nuclear power. The plants tend to be very large and expensive, and the R&D cycles are very long, so you tend to build a lot of the same design. One hidden design flaw and you may have to shut down a lot of expensive and needed generation capacity for very long periods.

            2. We’ll only know for certain when something really bad happens.

              No worries- in a 24,000 year half life, things will get better.
              How were things 24,000 years ago?

    2. I can’t but be reminded of the experience of a friend of mine several years ago.

      We worked for General Atomic in San Diego, the date was about 1973. My friend was a QA engineer and was sent to Iran to monitor the construction of a Triga research reactor being built there by GA. At one point my friend found a problem of some kind and reported it to the appropriate local representative. The problem was going to cause a significant delay in the construction.

      The next morning there was a knock on his hotel room door. Two uniformed men advised him to pack his bags while they waited to take him to the airport.

      No matter how well engineered the French reactor was, selling it to a dictatorship has serious risks for everyone involved.

      1. Way too many people think that dictatorships are more “efficient”. Decision making seems faster.

        What they don’t realize is that broad sharing of decision making and transparency reduces risks of mistakes, and improves the quality of decision making.

        A classic example is the US and Vietnam: the quality of planning and decision making was abysmal because it was kept to a very small circle and the process was secret, as documented in the Pentagon Papers.

        This has been true of US foreign policy in general: oil wars, ME invasions, overthrowing democracies…all counterproductive.

        A pure autocracy (aka dictatorship) is inferior to even the worst of democracy: at worst, a democracy at minimum forces would-be autocrats to go through the effort of propagandizing gullible voters who at least get to vote on whether to be cannon fodder.

        At best a democracy involves a substantial informed professional class, which brings a wide set of knowledge and real expertise.

        ——-

        The best argument FOR democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average billionaire. I’ve listened to quite a few wealthy people in unguarded moments, and their grasp of reality is…scary. The stuff on Fox News is generally consistent with what the wealthy want to believe, and so they actually believe it. It’s very, very scary.

        1. “The stuff on Fox News is generally consistent with what the wealthy want to believe, and so they actually believe it. It’s very, very scary.”

          Dead on, as I see it.

          It’s beyond scary. It’s terrifying.

          1. It’s not the wealthy Fox news viewers that scare me. It’s glassy eyed Trump followers who are more likely to end up in the street with pitchforks than run away to an island when things get difficult.

    1. It seems that hot shots like Musk simply cannot be deferred from going to China or any other dictatorship in search of cheap labor. The mentality and the reward structure for top executives explains why they have all the money and working people are getting poorer. Whether it is off-shoring or automation every dollar they save in labor costs is profit to the shareholders and comes out of the pocket of the worker. I think at one time, particularly when unions were strong, a measure of productivity improvements went to the workers. Those times are gone and we see evidence that the damage is not only to some individuals but the the very cohesiveness of the society.

      1. As best I can tell Musk’s primary objective is to expand EV production ASAP (and solar, etc). He’s taken enormous financial risks, going to the point of insolvency several times. And Tesla doesn’t pay dividends to shareholders.

        Tesla is expanding in China because that’s where the EV consumers are, and it’s the current center of EV production. If Tesla wants to maximize world EV production it has to be there.

        I share your unhappiness with inequality of income and wealth, and I agree with your general description of what’s going on with manufacturing, but I’d say that Tesla and Musk are more complex than that.

        1. I accept that Musk is going where the growth is and that he is complex. But I think a person like him suffers from the kind of megalomaniac-ness (What is that word?) that we have seen recently in high public office and it is not modulated by concern for humanity, the ecosystem or common decency. He may very well accomplish much in those directions or he may end up being the worst thing that ever happened to human well being. That’s not his agenda, his agenda is all about ego. Electric cars just happen to be the tool.

          1. I certainly can’t claim special knowledge. I suspect that his motives are better than you’re thinking, but I don’t know for sure.

            I am confident, however, that so far he’s accomplished a great deal of good. His acceleration of EV progress has indeed been a very, very good thing.

            1. I agree he’s accomplished a great deal. However his generally reckless behavior has more than once threatened to undo Tesla and now his rocket venture is at risk of bankruptcy.

            2. Well, he wouldn’t have accomplished any of this if he weren’t willing to take great risks. It’s possible that this kind of approach will eventually end with the wrong bet. But, even if he fails now he’s still accomplished an enormous thing: he’s dramatically accelerated the whole idea of EVs, and we all owe him a large debt of gratitude for that. It has made a real difference to the whole project of reducing climate change.

          2. JJ,

            Please elaborate on what it is you think Musk is doing or might do that would be “the worst thing that ever happened to human well being.”

            I can see that he may may a colossal mistake, and ruin his company, and any late arriving investors in it, but I can’t see any likely mechanism for his destroying the economy of the world, or seriously disrupting the environment, etc, to even a minor extent, compared to many other individuals and companies…. especially the bigger fossil fuel industry companies.

            1. He’s the richest person in the world or near so. He has enormous power and little constraint. His “die on Mars, preferably not on impact” statement shows, in spite of his obvious technical skills, an enormous ignorance in that he may very well die on Mars but his focus on it negates the obvious fact that there is no salvation for mankind off of this planet. People may either believe that it is a solution or, more likely, use the possibility as an excuse to avoid planet saving efforts.

              In a nutshell my fundamental concern is that an unstable person with so much power and “screen time” is in a position to move the conversation in very dangerous directions.
              I did say “may” not “will”.

            2. OMG. You’re worried about the occasional idea from Musk about space exploration, and you’re not worried about the billionaires that are manipulating Trump followers into attacking democracy and distrusting government?

              The single largest problem in the world right now (besides climate change) is income and wealth inequity. That inequity is fueling most of the anger in working and middle class folks, wielding pitchforks. And the billionaires who control Fox News, Newscorp, and a host of other wing-nut media, as well as the Republican Party, are redirecting all of that anger away from them and towards government, democracy, science, education, mainst stream media and the other institutions that provide a counterbalance to their power.

              And you’re worried about one of the few billionaires who’s actually working on important solutions to climate change??

              You’re looking in the wrong direction!

            3. Nick:
              Of course I worry about all that too. This thread started out about going to China for cheap labor in spite of the consequences so Musk is part of exactly the problems you mention.

            4. Well, this is where the thread started: “Interesting to watch as China overtakes Japan in global auto manufacturing as the transition to EVs continues. ” Your first comment made an argument that the move was primarily about cheap labor, and…I disagreed.

              I agree that Musk has not made solving income inequality a primary goal. In that sense he’s part of the current economic system, but that’s different from “being part of the problem”. He can’t be expected to solve all the world’s problems simultaneously. Expecting him to is holding him to a higher standard than ICE manufacturers. Which some people do as a sneaky way of objecting to EVs in general.

              Do you agree that it’s a good idea to transition to EVs as quickly as possible*?

              *however you personally define ASAP

            5. Nick:
              I do agree moving to EVs is a high priority, in fact I drive a plug-in hybrid (Chevy Volt) and almost never use the gasoline engine. I simply refuse to think of Musk primarily as a person working to improve the climate situation. I see him as just another narcissist who found a niche in the EV market to exploit. His position as a champion of that market is, in my mind, incidental to his ego centered ambitions. It is the free market environment that “chose” Musk for that role. If he could find a better fame and fortune opportunity killing Dolphins I believe he would drop the EVs for that endeavor. In spite of all that I believe that his creation of Tesla was a good thing. His going to China will add to the Chinese market. He will get cheap labor there and the Chinese will steal as much of his intellectual property as they can.

            6. I simply refuse to think of Musk primarily as a person working to improve the climate situation. I see him as just another narcissist

              It could be. Who cares? What’s important is that Tesla is making a big difference. We don’t talk about the CEO of Exxon, or the CEO of GM. Why talk about Musk?

              It looks identical to climate deniers attacking Gore for his lifestyle and pretending that invalidates his message about climate change.

              His going to China will add to the Chinese market. He will get cheap labor there and the Chinese will steal as much of his intellectual property as they can.

              All of which will accelerate the spread of EVs. Sure, it’s annoying to see the Chinese steal IP, but if you’re primarily concerned with accelerating the development of EVs, then you should applaud the spread of EV related IP. Right?

      2. Musk’s ultimate objective is to get to Mars; make humanity ‘multi-planetary’. Everything else is just how he’s going to pay for that.

        1. I doubt that, but..who cares? He’s actually done an enormous amount of good by accelerating the transition away from ICEs.

          Or do you disagree? Do you feel that we should stick with oil?

          1. Nick takes it as axiomatic that Musk is a net benefit to the environment.
            I feel that Musk’s CO2 footprint is quite large; what with flying his G650 everywhere he needs to go and having 6 or 7 kids. Perhaps his products have saved some CO2 from being emitted and perhaps he has wasted that benefit he brought to the market with his ostentatious lifestyle.
            Environmental and CO2 footprint is most heavily correlated with income, not with how much one cares about the planet, Nick.

            https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/1/16718844/green-consumers-climate-change

            Providing EVs to the worlds most wealthy is probably not gonna save the planet. Not counting on any billionaires pulling it off either.
            Bill Gates wrote a book about the environmental problems we face and he had some recommended solutions; taking away his money wasn’t one of them.
            Nick has been at this cornucopian game here at POB for several years now and has nothing to show in terms of the progress he has been repeatedly forecasting.

            1. Sour Grapes- used to refer to an attitude in which someone adopts a negative attitude to something because they cannot have it themselves.

              Cry me a river- To weep profusely or excessively in the presence of another person.

              “Doomer” and “doomerism” are terms which arose primarily on the internet to describe people worried about global problems such as overpopulation, peak oil, climate change, and pollution.

              At every turn, the Doomers have passed judgment from their keyboards. Sometimes they were vaguely right, but mostly they were outright wrong. I can’t explain why Doomers doom any more than I can explain why crooners croon, but I assume it’s simply a preference for the homebody life and/or crippling depression.

              What I can suggest though is that we remember them after this, and especially remember not to be like them in the future.

              Because they did nothing to help.

              Not one thing.

              Like the annoying coworker or lab partner who stands off to the side watching and criticizing. They consider themselves too smart to keep their viewpoints to themselves, but they are also too chicken to roll up their sleeves and participate.

              While everyone else did their jobs, followed protocols, and slowly lurched society and the economy into something that could function, the Doomer sits on the sidelines self righteous and judging, publicly criticizing’s, and making their predictable doomy predictions.

              If we continue on our current track, he predicts food shortages, global economic instability, refugee crises, populist reactionary movements: all the forces that are already plaguing humanity, intensified. He has little confidence that the world will do what’s necessary to curtail the climate crisis, and he wrestles with the sheer scale of what needs to happen – such as disrupting the entrenched economic interests that run counter to disaster prevention. You’re not seeing people who are planning for the future, because the future seems so precarious and so unpredictable,

              Promoting doom and despair, and the notion that it’s too late to do anything, is literally stealing their future away from them.

            2. I don’t give a nickel about Musk and his personal life, one way or the other. His plane and his kids don’t have a significant impact compared to the whole automotive industry. And I’d bet a lot that his antics are primarily very effective, free PR and advertising.

              Tesla doesn’t pay a nickel for advertising. Every mention online, positive or negative, including yours, is free advertising…

              So. Survivalist. Do you agree that EVs are a good thing??

            3. HuntingtonBeach, I have never read such a line of total bullshit in many years.

              Doomers have passed judgment from their keyboards. Sometimes they were vaguely right, but mostly they were outright wrong.

              I am a doomer and I still believe I am exactly right. The climate is still changing. Rivers and lakes are still drying up. Deserts are still expanding. Rain forest and boreal forest are still being clear cut. Ocean fisheries are still disappearing. Virtually every species of megafauna on earth is still headed for certain extinction. Water tables all over the world are dropping meters per year because of overpumping for irrigation. And it’s all because the human population has exploded to several times the long-term carrying capacity of the earth.

              Because they did nothing to help.

              Not one thing.

              Oh, give me a frigging break! Just what the hell do you expect me to do? I cannot stop idiots from clear-cutting the forest, or stop the planting of palm trees for oil production and keep orangutans from going extinct. I cannot prevent Japanese factory ships from overfishing the damn fisheries. I cannot stop the world’s farmers from overpumping for irrigation.

              I cannot change the fucking world HB, and it really pisses me off when someone accuses me of being nothing but a stupid lazy doomer for not fixing the world’s problems.

              The problem HB, is the evolutionary success of one rapacious great ape. Nothing can stop this great ape from multiplying its numbers until they have turned the earth into a barren wasteland.

            4. Nick doesn’t care about Musk and his personal life. I’d call that a blind spot. I wonder if he cares about the Koch brothers and their personal lives?
              It’s worth noting that the CO2 footprint for USA is averaged out to 15 tons per person per year, that’s including the billionaires. In 2018 Musk’s CO2 footprint was 2084 tons (140 x the average American). But hey, he’s a hero saving the planet, right? Leading the way?

              https://www.marketwatch.com/story/elon-musks-carbon-footprint-looks-modest-by-billionaire-standards-but-then-he-doesnt-own-a-yacht-11613494353

              Muskovites remind me of Trumpsters; that is to say, sycophants with a shallow understanding of the man they shill for. Objective criticism is seen as sour grapes; Cult much?

              It’s interesting to note that whenever I criticize Musk the usual suspects/Fanbois and cornucopians pile on. I’d wager my CO2 footprint is smaller than any fanbois’ (see HB driving 5 miles to the gym to use a stationary bike) Seems kinda cult like, very Trumpster; I’m attacking their hero. The man is above reproach.

              Some here are betting on the ‘Battle of the Billionaires’ to turn up a win and save them. I think I’ll stick to making my own backup plans.

            5. Survivalist wrote: Muskovites remind me of Trumpsters; that is to say, sycophants with a shallow understanding of the man they shill for.

              I don’t know about Muscovites but I think you have Trumpsters spot on. 😂

            6. I wonder if he cares about the Koch brothers and their personal lives?

              Nope. Not a bit.

              Attacking people’s personal lives is a classic climate denier trick. For example, it’s a standard thing for people who want to ignore Al Gore: they attack his personal life, and personal use of transportation, etc. It’s all irrelevant, a distraction.

              So. Do you agree that Climate Change is a big risk that we should address ASAP?
              Do you agree that a transition to EVs ASAP is a good thing??

            7. Elon Musk and Al Gore- leading from the front, if you ignore their carbon footprints aka their personal lives; this is the best Nick’s got. Forgive me if I don’t share Nicks shallow cornucopian optimism vis vis being saved by the billionaires. I would suggest that a man with a carbon footprint 140x the American average is a poor example of climate leader bringing solutions to the table. Pathetic you even try to minimize and trivialize the carbon footprints of the wealthiest people on the planet. You shot your bolt. You care not a wit for the planet. You’re shilling for optimism and you’re getting rather disjointed in your arguments. I’m guessing Southern California- cubicle land.

            8. Survivalist:

              Do you agree that Climate Change is a big risk that we should address ASAP?
              Do you agree that a transition to EVs ASAP is a good thing?

            9. Nick- do you agree that carbon footprint is a personal responsibility that people should be held accountable for? Do you think billionaires with carbon footprints 100’s of times larger than the average American one, which is already grotesquely bloated, are going to save humanity from the Koch brothers? Do you care about the environment or just selling false hope though adopting EVs? Are you for real or a shill?
              I often find that those who lack Class Consciousness misattribute the root cause of many frictions and problems in society, and as a result become things like Trumpsters and cornucopian Muskovites, looking for solutions in a make believe world of self delusion. As the children despair for their future and beg for constraint, all Nick has to say is ‘A New Car!’, very Price is Right. And oddly Nick cares not a wit for ones carbon footprint aka “personal life”, as long as you like EVs you’re a savior. It all wreaks of narcissism.

              https://youtu.be/uQ0BXUkzRqM

            10. selling false hope though adopting EVs

              Okay, so you’ve answered one question: it’s very clear that you don’t think EVs are a good idea. Otherwise, I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say. Perhaps we can make progress by trying to establish a foundation of what we agree about, one step at a time. So here’s a simple question:

              Do you agree that Climate Change is a big risk that we should address ASAP?

            11. Ok so you’ve answered no questions. I won’t be interrogated by you. I suspect we agree on nothing. I think you’re either a dupe or a shill.

              Uh yeah- climate change is a predicament Nick, it’s gonna kill most of us, starting with the poorest and most vulnerable. It’s a mass ecocide/suicide of staggering proportions. I feel I’ve been quite clear about that, I’m a prepper, that’s my thing- cue the climate change and peak oil induced famine. Here’s a side order of climate change induced pandemic if you’re bored while you wait. Yeah, it’s a fuckin’ problem Nick. Duh!

              In terms of mitigating the environmental destruction of the planet, EVs won’t amount to a hill of beans. They’ll just move the pollution around to something and someone else. Likely things Nick doesn’t care about and doesn’t want you to know about. At best they’ll help humanity kick the can down the road a little longer while we trash more of the china shop, so to speak, although in a slightly different manner. They don’t improve the long term prognosis for humanity on this planet.

              https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/27/electric-vehicles-the-dirty-nickel-problem/

              https://www.mining.com/as-demand-for-nickel-grows-so-do-environmental-concerns-report/

              https://unctad.org/news/developing-countries-pay-environmental-cost-electric-car-batteries

              https://interestingengineering.com/clean-evs-and-dirty-lithium-mining-business

              https://news.mongabay.com/2020/05/indonesian-miners-eyeing-ev-nickel-boom-seek-to-dump-waste-into-the-sea/

              https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact

              https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/nov/08/cobalt-drc-miners-toil-for-30p-an-hour-to-fuel-electric-cars

              Cue Nicks Phd dissertation on the optimistic future of zero impact ethical mining, brought to us courtesy of The Good billionaires; the ones with the irrelevant carbon footprints. Perhaps HB can chime in too; to let us know he’s probably right cuz he’s not a doomer, is doing well financially, drives 5 miles to get some exercise at the gym, and is really reeling in the ladies down on the strip.

            12. Okay, so we’re agreed that climate change is a very important problem to deal with.

              Now, do we agree on the following:

              That climate change is caused by green-house-gas emissions?
              That the majority of GHG emissions come from fossil fuels? and,
              That we need to pretty much eliminate fossil fuel GHG emissions in the next 20 to 40 years? And, finally,
              That we need to stop burning fossil fuels in the next 20 to 40 years?

            13. I would like to amend Nick’s statement to say that humanity needs to have stopped fossil fuel emissions 20 to 40 years ago. Nick, do you agree or disagree?

              Cue a link to Australian coal production.

            14. Chilb,

              That would have been good. Ideally every country would have heavily taxed fossil fuel burning from the very beginning of it’s use. That would have internalized it’s unaccounted-for costs and greatly restrained it’s growth, and set the stage for an earlier transition to alternatives.

              But it’s infinitely better to do something late than never.

            15. “But it’s infinitely better to do something late than never.”

              if you assume that we are making the right choices – then I will agree to that. (not sure if would make that assumption though!)

            16. Holy Fuck Nick; rather than hold your had while we restate the painfully obvious, how about you acknowledge that at best EVs, your panacea for humanity, are nothing more than a slightly less environmentally damaging form of personal transport.
              Anybody who thinks a global EV fleet will save humanity from overshoot and climate change, and the world from degradation by humans, is a either a dupe or a shill. Think of ICE as a beer, and EVs as a light beer. At best they’ll buy humanity some time to kick the can down the road while we further destroy life on earth. That’s your magic bullet. It’s laughable.

            17. Survivalist,

              I really can’t tell what you’re saying.

              EVs are a way to stop burning oil for most transportation. They’re just one part of a larger strategy to stop burning fossil fuels, but they’re an essential part. For some reason you’ve repeatedly said that EVs are a waste of time.

              You don’t think it’s important to stop burning fossil fuels?

            18. Nick,

              The point that Survivalist is making, that all of the major EV proponents seem to miss, is that our problem is not fossil fuels, it is overshoot. Humanity is facing many problems aside from global warming. EVs might (a big “might” since they will lead to cheaper fossil fuels) reduce carbon emissions. But they won’t solve our other overshoot problems. They will, in fact, likely make them worse, since they will enable the continued growth trajectory of humanity.

            19. Niko and Survivalist, ok we get it, you think EVs are not the answer. So what should we do then? People own cars and many people who don’t own cars aspire to own them. Driving an EV reduces the rate at which we add CO2 to the atmosphere. Since you don’t think EVs are the solution should we continue to drive ICE cars then?
              What is the solution?

            20. Suyog,

              The only solution that would actually work is a massive and immediate reduction in consumption of all kinds. This, of course, won’t happen.

              I think this is a defining difference between two viewpoints here. Those who think there is a solution and those who think there is not. Believers and non-believers, if you will. The discussion often comes to this point: A believer, frustrated that the non-believer thinks the believer’s proposed solution is worthless, asks the non-believer “what then should be done?’. The non-believer of course answers “it doesn’t matter”, or something similar. The discussion hits a snag because the two viewpoints are not reconcialiable.

              If I could MAKE the world do something, I would have the world immediately begin reverting much of what was built over the last 200 years while reducing consumption, having less babies, rewilding the planet, and getting the population at large to once again work in food production. Willful, controlled degrowth. That, and only that, is what it would take to avoid mass crisis. Any solution that does not address growth itself will not work, because the crisis isn’t climate change, or pollution, or mineral depletion, or nature destruction, or any of the other myriad civilization ending symptoms that we face. The disease is GROWTH. Everything else is a result, and as long as growth continues the crisis will get worse. Which is why EVs are a dumb idea: they enable us to continue growth beyond when other limits would have forced us to stop. So what if EVs solve climate change? We are still completely fucked either way, because humanity will never choose degrowth. It’s not in our collective DNA. We will continue to consume until nature forces us to stop, as we and every other species always has done. And the longer we are able to fight nature, the worse the crisis will become.

            22. Very well said Niko!,
              and Ron.

              I will add that humanity is not about to suddenly acknowledge population overshoot.
              Rather the bulldozer will continue to roll on with incredible momentum.
              Whatever we can do (short of slaughter) to make the bulldozer smaller and slower in a deliberate way is a small improvement, and worth vigorously pursuing.

              Ex- buy good habitat that is vulnerable to development or continued degradation (farmland) and let it go back to wild status, or simply donate to the Nature Conservancy.

            23. C’mon guys. No one has asked for a Solution To Everything. That’s what could be called a strawman and a distraction: it’s not what we’re talking about. No one up to this point in this conversation has asked for something that will simultaneously protect all wildlife, cure cancer and bring peace to earth.

              The question here is what to do about climate change. Niko has suggested that climate change is a good thing, and we should do nothing to prevent it. Instead, he suggests a plan of voluntary deep poverty, which he acknowledges has no chance of being implemented!

              It seems to me that we can and should eliminate carbon emissions: whatever else happens, we’ll be better off.

              Make sense?

            24. Nick,

              You accuse me of making a strawman, then immediately make up MULTIPLE strawmen for my arguments.

              I never suggested climate change is a good thing. I said it is one symptom of a larger problem, and solving it alone will not matter. EVs might (MIGHT!) help solve climate change, but only at the expense of making the other symptoms worse. And those other symptoms will end us just us surely as climate change will. The problem is GROWTH, and there is only ONE solution. That’s it.

              Further, I never suggested deep poverty. Reduction in consumption does not equate to poverty, especially in the spiritual and emotional sense. The vast majority of what we consume today is pure unadulterated waste. We could cut 90% and people would still have a perfectly good quality of life.

              I also never proposed a plan of any kind. I simply stated that the only thing that WOULD work (work as in save the Earth and human civilization) is a massive and voluntary reduction in consumption. That’s not my “plan”. I do not have a plan, because I do not believe there is a solution.

              And this gets back to my other comment. Discussion between believers and non-believers is pointless. Everything I say gets morphed in your mind into a “plan” or a course of action. I’m suggesting nothing of the sort. I’m stating the simple fact that EVs will do nothing to correct humanity’s trajectory, except for possibly replacing one existential threat with another. I’m also stating the simple fact that ending growth and reducing consumption is the only actual solution. And finally, I’m stating the fact that humanity won’t do that, and we are fucked.

              As far as “we should reduce emissions. Whatever else happens, we’ll be better off.” The problem is, that’s not true. If the “whatever else” is a massive increase in the size of the growth machine, then we will decidedly be WORSE off.

            25. Ok so if you guys feel that there is no solution and we are all doomed then why attack people who favor EVs? At least you concede that buying EVs will not make AGW worse. Incidentally no one said that EVs are a panacea. They are a silver BB, not a silver bullet.

            26. Suyog,

              I generally think EVs are a distraction that will in the long run make our situation worse. But I don’t have a major problem with them really, as you said they aren’t really worse than what we’ve got. But I get really tired of all the “EV worship” that goes on. I tend to respond negatively to all the proselytizing.

            27. Suyog- I think people are talking about different things here, and failing to realize that they are blurring the issues. As i see it
              -there is no cure for global overshoot except downsizing, and we have no gentle or successful recipe for that. This is the paramount problem.

              -fossil fuels are in depletion mode and there is no replacement that will be deployed at scale and in time to prevent severe episodes of energy shortage/poverty. [some places will be smarter/luckier than others and will suffer energy shortage to a much lesser degree than others- this is a big ,big story.

              -climate change disruption is going to progress and be a severely disruptive/expensive issue to deal with. Measures to combat the disruption and weaning ourselves from carbon fuels are certainly worthy of strong effort/resources.

              -both climate change and fossil fuel depletion issues have many of the same ramification for economic/industrial policy. This includes an incredibly strong case for switching ICE transport to Electric Transport on a global basis, along with all sorts of other measures- such as deployment of heat pumps instead of fossil combustion furnaces and AC’s, downsizing consumption of meat and plastic, global carbon fuel taxation.

              Where some of us differ strongly is the notion that energy and climate adaptation measures can allow continued growth in the human economic, demographic and chemical experiment. There are those of us who see it differently- at some point here we must acknowledge that we have entered over-growth condition during the last 50 yrs (roughly), and that the contraction phase is inevitable. My thought is that attempts to manage the retreat may be somewhat helpful. It is far past time to acknowledge and be thinking about this.

              There are many important related issues that need to be seriously considered- like wildlife habitat destruction and ‘extinction event’, geoengineering, soil and other resource depletion, and oh yeh- geopolitical ramifications of all this.

    2. China is already the leading car manufacturing country by far, producing more vehicles than the US, Japan, Germany and South Korea put together

  3. Community Solar is slowly gaining traction, but likely will be commonplace in the future.
    Here is an example from Maryland-
    Neighborhood Sun
    ‘Joining a local community solar farm is easy.
    You get a share of the energy output from a community solar farm in your area and it is credited to your bill.’

    You purchase credits in a specific local installation.
    https://neighborhoodsun.solar/

    1. It’s good to see some creative efforts at distributing the cost and “bother” of owning your own system without having to resort to the “regulated utility” model which has in recent years proven to be less than community minded.

    1. Hydrogen as such, H2, and ammonia are pretty much both non starters, nothing more than wishful thinking, in terms of solving our transportation problems, for now and maybe forever.

      I can see batteries being the solution to just about all local daily travel. It’s getting to be fairly obvious that there are at least three or four options for building them using cheap and abundant materials. SO WHAT if this means driving slow cars with limited range for every day purposes? We’ve been getting by with slow cars pretty much ever since they were invented, anyway, stuck in traffic.

      BUT…. given that there may come a time when we have wind and solar electricity out the ying yang, it’s possible that hydrogen and ammonia might work as alternative transportation fuels.

      Classic economic theory tells us that when a good gets to be too expensive, we either use less or substitute something in it’s place.

      I’m thinking we’re going to be doing a hell of a lot less traveling in the not so distant future, and that we are going to be substituting a lot more locally manufactured goods for ones made on the far side of the world.

      Sooner or later, we’re going to have to face up to the rather PLEASANT truth that it’s a damned sight cheaper, EVERYTHING CONSIDERED, to make stuff at home, than it is to buy stuff from the other side of the globe………..

      than it is to support the people who OUGHT to be making all that stuff on welfare.

      It’s DAMNED easy for a man or woman, or even a kid, to morph into criminal, an easy step at a time, in the process of hustling a few extra dollars for cigarettes or groceries or shoes for the kids……… or candy and soft drinks.

      It starts with some babysitting or house cleaning or cutting grass or collecting aluminum cans. It ends peddling dope, burglary and fencing, or worse.

      Once people are IN the welfare and criminal subculture, they lose any sense of guilt about such behaviors. The only real check on their behavior is the fear of getting caught.

      They don’t see any moral difference between a dentist being legally able to charge them three or four hundred bucks to extract a tooth, cash up front, while they’re in agony from the pain, and stealing that three hundred, when that’s the only real hope they have of putting their hands on it.

      1. If you suggest “Making stuff at home” to a bunch of economists they will likely all faint dead away. I have been long convinced that the combination of exporting our manufacturing base to Asia is probably the worst foreign policy decision every made. Yet it has been dogma for whatever political party has been in power for many decades. It has, as you indicate, caused untold social damage, weakened our national defense, exacerbated environmental damage, and vastly worsened income inequality. The current debacle at west coast ports dramatically demonstrates how much damage has been done.

        1. If you suggest “Making stuff at home” to a bunch of economists they will likely all faint dead away

          200 years ago most of what you needed was made within 200 miles. Now, no one blinks an eye if their stuff is made in another state 1,000 miles away. If Floridians refused to buy anything made outside of Florida, everyone would be a lot poorer.

          More importantly, Look around: how many people are working on the farm? 150 years ago 80% of the population worked on the farm. The US is still a net exporter of food, but…employment on the farm has disappeared (less than 1% of the workforce). Which is what you want, so that people can have better lives. So, manufacturing jobs are disappearing the same way farm jobs went away. There’s nothing you can do about it.

          Republicans are telling working people that they’re poorer because of evil foreigners taking their jobs. And, of course, some manufacturing has moved out. But really it’s just a lie. Wages are low because of Republican policies: highly regressive taxes, destruction of unions, low minimum wages, very hich cost or low quality education, etc.

          1. Wages are also low because so many manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas. The very threat of shipping jobs overseas is a major factor in the destruction of unions. Even as a life-time lefty I don’t think that Democrats have even tried very effectively to answer to the many problems of offshoring including the lower environmental standards and the propping up of ugly regimes in many of the places where work has been shifted.

            The very first jobs sent overseas were the low skill jobs that have hurt the most vulnerable Americans. Nothing done in this country has alleviated the problem. As small factory towns have dried up in recent years we have seen the same drug and crime problems grow in semi-rural communities that have been pervasive in inner cities. Putting Ricardian economic theory ahead of national well-being is just dumb.

            1. And, I have to say again that focusing on off-shoring is a distraction from the things that we have power to change.

              Most of the decline in low skill employment in manufacturing has been from automation – probably 80% of it. US manufacturing output has expanded by 50% in the last 40 years, while employment has crashed. That’s from automation.

              10 years ago coal hit a peak in mine production in the US, but coal mining employment was a tiny fraction of what it used to be. That’s just one example.

              Most of the decline in rural areas is due to the decline of farm employment, which has nothing to do with off-shoring.

              Now, there has been loss of manufacturing employment due to offshoring, and I agree it would be good to try to implement corruption and environmental standards for US imports. But the US will continue to lose jobs as long as the dollar is excessively high, and the dollar will continue to be too strong as long as the dollar is useful to other countries as a dominant means of exchange and a reserve currency.

              The US is suffering from a form of Dutch Disease due to the strength of the dollar – in effect we’re exporting money. I don’t know what the cure for that is, but it’s certainly not going to come from Republicans, or any politician blaming employment problems of globalization: that’s just scape-goating.

              Ultimately we need better, affordable education; progressive taxes; strong unions; minimum wage above the poverty line, etc.

      2. >Sooner or later, we’re going to have to face up to the rather PLEASANT truth that it’s a damned sight cheaper, EVERYTHING CONSIDERED, to make stuff at home, than it is to buy stuff from the other side of the globe………..

        OFM —
        Check out the calculations I did below. Shipping things across oceans is really really cheap, thanks to the huge size of container ships. It would take a massive increase in costs to change that.

        1. Yes, and in case of an energy shock it can get cheaper fast – just by reducing speed. This has been done already one time, away from cruising at full speed.
          When there is a traffic jam before a harbor, it makes more sense to reduce cruising speed by a few knots bevore arriving – saving a lot of fuel.

    2. I think that shipping may face much higher costs if they can’t use oil, but I don’t think it matters much.
      Transporting a 20 container from China to the US only costs $1000. You can put thousands of items in a container that size.
      For example, you can easily put 30,000 T shirts in a 20′ container. So the shipping costs across the Pacific are something like three cents per shirt. If costs double it might be six cents. I doubt increased fuel costs would have any effect on trade.

      Of course somethings aren’t as easy to pack. A container of fancy headsets might only hold 300-400 units, so it would be more like 30 cents per unit. They may retail at $50 though. It’s not a significant problem.

      I consulted for a company that imports pet products to Europe. They pack over 10,000 dog dishes into a container. It’s just stamped plastic, and cost very little (less than a dollar) to manufacture, and shipping costs are only a few cents per unit. They retail for €15. Adding extra shipping costs will not harm them at all.

      So it probably will cost more to ship goods if oil runs out, but it probably doesn’t matter.

      1. Do you have an estimate of how much it costs to ship a barrel of oil? (it may give an indication of how much oil it “costs” to ship oil…
        Rgds
        WP

        1. The kind of shipping I’m talking about here should be very cheap for oil as well, because tankers are so big. I don’t know much about other shipping. Trucks seem like they would very expensive, but I don’t really know.

        2. I believe that large container ships use about 1 gallon of fuel per very roughly 1,500 ton-miles. So, a shipping distance of 7,500 miles and 6.67 barrels per ton gives about .75 gallons, or 1.8% of the barrel.

      2. >A container of fancy headsets might only hold 300-400 units,

        3000-4000 units, not 300-400

        1. Do you have an estimate of the average weight of a container? My guesstimate is 10 tons.

          1. Yeah, I think the maximum weight is 25 000 kg, so something less than half that sounds like a likely average weight. I think volume tends to be a bigger constraint (for consumer goods anyway) than weight. Those 30 000 T-shirts I was talking about before probably weigh about 5000 kg or less.

      3. I saw a report some years ago that made clear how cheap shipping actually is. The report focused on the shipment of bulk rice. If you can afford to ship rice across the Pacific ocean then you can ship anything at a profit.
        ..and rice is shipped around the world. Today’s price on commodity markets is about $280/ton.

        1. Bananas are a good example. They cost something like €1.20 a kilogram in the supermarket in Europe and get shipped halfway around the world.

  5. MIKE B 12/03/2021 at 12:15 pm
    “I think you mean AR-15s, not pitchforks…”

    Yeh, that’s my worry too..

  6. Speaking of ‘pitchforks’ and their military grade counterpart now common throughout America, I can imagine a further segregation of the nation into zones of educated vs ‘believers’, or blue vs red voting districts, as gerrymandering is encouraging extremist representation in government.
    Simply, people will increasingly leave areas that don’t jive with their sense of decent and normal civil society if things become unpleasant and they are able.
    Its called migration.
    Perhaps this is already causing a big affect on home prices- people will pay a lot to get away from repressive cultures [and ignorant people].
    If you look at a the average home price by zipcode you can see that the higher prices generally correspond to the zones with less ‘red’ dominance.
    https://metrocosm.com/us-housing-markets-map.html

    Of course there are more factors at play than just voting extremism, but the theme likely has a deep thread of truth. I have noticed in the west that the areas with reliably heavy democratic voting do attract much larger numbers of property buyers than those areas that are heavily ‘believers with pitchforks voters’.
    A big part of this is simply that better educated people do tend to live close to the areas with innovative industries, with higher pay. Better educated people are more likely to vote democratic.

    1. Hickory:
      Unfortunately there’s a limiting factor; price. As more educated, upper income leftys move to the coasts prices go through the roof. Both of my daughters are employed professionals with advanced degrees in their late 30s and neither can afford to buy a home. The upside is that many of their friends are moving to places like Texas and eastern Washington shifting the culture in those areas to be less neanderthal.

      1. Very true. It is amazing the premium that people are willing to pay to avoid living in places where culture is anti-diversity and anti-science.
        Of course there are many other factors in home pricing- especially proximity to good jobs, major universities, and water.

      2. “Am I alone in feeling that authentic freedom requires not just the end of capitalism but also a degree of autonomy from the collective?”

      3. I think the main reason house prices are so high is the terrible city planning in America. with 80% of the city land dedicated to single family units on quarter acre lots, you limit the size of the city, pushing people away.

        1. Actually, that’s the plan, starting at the beginning, and it’s still the case now: raise and support home prices by limiting supply.

        2. In Calif the state law now mandates ability of property owners to install 2 accessory dwelling units (up to 1200 sq ft)
          Regardless of lot size- even on lots that are 6000 sq ft, which are common in the cities.
          This statewide law supersedes all local ordinances.
          https://ezplansusa.com/2021-guide-to-the-new-adu-laws-in-california

          This is to designed to combat the lack of affordability of housing in zones with high demand. It will help some people.

  7. Pro-Trump counties now have far higher COVID death rates. Misinformation is to blame

    Since May 2021, people living in counties that voted heavily for Donald Trump during the last presidential election have been nearly three times as likely to die from COVID-19 as those who live in areas that went for now-President Biden. That’s according to a new analysis by NPR that examines how political polarization and misinformation are driving a significant share of the deaths in the pandemic.

    NPR looked at deaths per 100,000 people in roughly 3,000 counties across the U.S. from May 2021, the point at which vaccinations widely became available. People living in counties that went 60% or higher for Trump in November 2020 had 2.7 times the death rates of those that went for Biden. Counties with an even higher share of the vote for Trump saw higher COVID-19 mortality rates.

    In October, the reddest tenth of the country saw death rates that were six times higher than the bluest tenth, according to Charles Gaba, an independent health care analyst who’s been tracking partisanship trends during the pandemic and helped to review NPR’s methodology. Those numbers have dropped slightly in recent weeks, Gaba says: “It’s back down to around 5.5 times higher.”

    It’s called The Darwin Syndrom”. That is, the ignorant often die because of their ignorance.

    1. Darwin does seem to be sorting things out——
      Improving the gene pool.

      1. It’s called having a private decision over how you live your life, just like how you say “my body my choice” on abortion, vaccines should be the same way.

        1. It’s not a “private decision.” It’s an issue of PUBLIC health.

          You have no “right” to infect others, so expect to be excluded from public.

          You don’t get to use the on-ramp as an exit ramp.

    2. Ron- for many its Deliberate Ignorance.

      Joe- feel free to go without vaccine, just don’t bitch and moan if you get excluded from public places.

  8. yeh, it wasn’t windy at all here today either.
    And nuclear is in trouble too. They say all the fuel is decaying.
    And my woodpile is wet.

    2. It’s worth it for the depiction of that Republic*nt governor of Florida alone.

  10. 16 Countries Now Over 10% Plugin Vehicle Share, 6 Over 20%

    The plugin electric vehicle market has exploded in the past year (in a good way), thanks especially to the European Union requiring that automakers sell more efficient vehicles (EVs) or pay big fines. All of a sudden, automakers have discovered that consumers will indeed buy millions of EVs if you produce them and market them well.

    I’m not claiming this is a definite list of the countries that have passed the milestone of 10% of new auto sales being plugin auto sales, but these are the only ones I’m aware of. As you will see, 15 of them are European countries. The 16th is China, and it’s actually in 16th place (based on plugin vehicle market share in the first half of 2021).

    Norway is leading the charge with plug-ins having 82.7% share for the first half of 2021. How soon will plug-ins hit 99.9% of the market in Norway? (We have to leave 0.1% for exotic supercars etc.)

    Germany: In October Plug-In Share Exceeded 30% For The First Time

    In October, new passenger car registrations in Germany decreased for the fourth consecutive month, by 35% year-over-year to 178,683.

    The plug-in segment is growing, but more slowly right now. Last month, some 54,294 new plug-in cars were registered (up 13% year-over-year). The market share has reached a new record of nearly 30.4%. It’s, by the way, the third record in a row.

    Another interesting thing is that the all-electric car sales are growing at a healthy rate, while the plug-in hybrids are struggling to maintain their pace from late 2020.

    How long before Germany gets to where Norway is now?

    UK: Plug-In Car Sales Reach 28% Share In November 2021

    The passenger car market in the UK finally noted some year-over-year increase, after several months of decline. In November, 115,706 new cars were registered (up 1.7% year-over-year, but still down by a third compared to the pre-pandemic average).

    On the other hand, plug-in car sales are growing fast. In November, some 32,522 units were registered (up 80% year-over-year), which is 28.1% of the total market (a new record, if we exclude the one-off, lockdown-affected April 2020).

    Most of the plug-in sales are all-electric cars and they are also growing much faster than plug-in hybrids – by 110% in November.

    How soon before the UK gets to where Norway is now? Did this increase in market share for plug-ins have anything to do with the recent fuel shortages?

    When/if the world economy recovers from this economic disaster, will people go back to buying vehicles that run om petroleum based fuels? The tipping point for EVs is going to be when the EV equivalent of a Toyota Corolla/Honda Civic/Nissan Sentra/Versa costs the same to buy as the ICE powered version. Why pay the same for a vehicle that is going to cost more to fuel and maintain? Already in China the best selling EV is a tiny car with a range of just 75 miles and a price tag starting at $US4,450. An optional 50% larger battery raises the range to 106 miles and the price to $US6,000.

    1. I think it is critically important to reduce fossil fuel usage one way or another, so the policy aspect of this (the change ICE vs. EV) is always in the background. Given metal resource restraints; if all vehicles were to be luxury cars with weight 2-3 tons (500-700 kg battery), I personally think it would be difficult to get to a global inventory of more than 100 million cars. The key is to reduce the size of the cars with a reasonable range and also make it reasonable easy to recharge. Then it is more probable to get to a pool of 200-300 million electric cars globally, which is not too bad. And if resource constraints are to interrupt, make mini cars for single households to reach the target anyway. In that way, it is possible to still thrive in a suburban environment, while reducing fossil fuel emissions significantly. A lot of people love that, and also the infrastructure is there (dependent on a car which is a weak spot). Think about it: If you replace your ICE car with a weight of 2 tons, with an electric with half the weight. And drive 70% of the distance you normally do. Then you would reduce energy usage with 2,5 (efficiency gain) x 2 (size) x 1,3 (driving distance) = 6,5 times your old ICE car. It would make a big difference, assuming the energy comes from renewables.

      Car share or car hire is another way to be more economic. You don’t need a car with a really good range, except that occasional holiday trip to France for example. Or you could use buses or railway more (all electric).

      1. Kolbeinih,

        I don’t think there’s good evidence of metal resource constraints for EVs. Are you thinking of battery metals?

        I too find very large vehicles annoying (in part because they’re much less safe for everyone), but weight isn’t the efficiency problem for hybrids or EVs: the energy used to accelerate that weight is mostly recovered by regenerative braking. The real problem with trucks and SUVs is that they mostly have the aerodynamics of a brick…

        1. Good points!

          The aerodynamics and regenerative braking should not be underestimated. Something like the Tesla model 3 seems very aerodynamically formed. But most electric cars are trending towards compact SUV’s it seems, so to fit enough battery capacity underneath?

          I don’t think there is metal constraints for battery metals as a whole theoretically. I just see the problems with contractions in the economy and fossil fuel use as a problem; it can snowball to all sectors. A concentrated effort to prioritise mining for critical metals can make EV goals more obtainable. I do think smaller EV vehicles will be the trend together with electrification of more medium sized transport and mechanical energy workhorses. In the last instance because the infrastructure will be there to support light trucks, light tractors and buses. And also there need to be enough renewable energy to support it; unfortunately the resources (solar, wind) are distributed around the globe as patchwork at best.

          I see there are many doomers in this blog. Nothing is sustainable, not even earth itself. A smaller economy based on metal recycling (and yes that will cost energy) and less energy available overall is much to prefer than just watching the depressing show depleting minerals happen too fast.

    2. I think the UK benefits from historical links to Norway. How fair the diving line when it came to extraction of the North Sea resources that were negotiated for example. Equinor is involved in the Doggerbank offshore wind projects and Statkraft is involved in stabilising the electricity facilities in inland UK in the face of more intermittency (wind power induced). So it seems like it’s full speed towards electrifying UK with the Norwegians working pretty hard to ensure a suitable floor for sustainable electricity supply. And the UK government pushing hard in the electrification direction of course. If I were to guess, the UK electricity output would get up to 500 twh (uncertain; dependent on the global economy), but not without a significant effort towards 2035. Transportation would maybe be 80 twh, evenly divided between personal transportation (15 million EV cars) and more heavy transportation up to 20 tons trucks in addition to workhorse mechanical units based on battery. A pressure on household heating would be there (200 twh at least) and there needs to be 100-150 twh green hydrogen production for industry (or for short term storage, or heavy transport). The rest electricity for industry. Then there will always be a cushion when it comes to coal and natural gas for electricity generation, and also for metallurgic coal in the industry. Same for oil when it comes to all of its uses. And that is pretty much the script as far as I am concerned (and I could be wrong).

      Just my take on it. The US climate change report pointed out by Hickory here recently, classified Northern Europe as a low risk area regarding climate change for some time. I guess the temperature rise does not mean so much as elsewhere, there is enough water and energy transition is going better than elsewhere. Despite some places are vastly overpopulated if renewables is the main source of energy.

  11. Apologies if this was already posted here..

    https://twitter.com/SunnySimons/status/1456615526952755200

    “Climate Impact of Decreasing Atmospheric Sulphate Aerosols and the Risk of a Termination Shock”

    Global shipping was responsible for a large part of anthropogenic emissions of sulfur over oceans. Most Earth Heat Gain from increased greenhouse gas concentrations warms oceans, which cover 71% of Earth surface and absorb ~89% of heat gain. Sulfur emissions from shipping reduced with ~80% from 2020 from regulation of the International Maritime Organization (IMO2020). Emission regulation of IMO decreased sulfur emissions over seas and oceans over Emissions Control Areas, with ~90% from 2015 and globally with ~80% from 2020. The past two decades saw an albedo decrease and an increase in planetary heat uptake, coinciding with a decrease in anthropogenic sulfur emissions.

    1. Another example of grave unintended consequences of trying to regulate away sulfur, just like when high-sulfur coal was demonized.

  12. The FAO Food Price Index (FFPI) averaged 134.4 points in November 2021, up 1.6 points (1.2 percent) from October and 28.8 points (27.3 percent) from November 2020. The latest increase marked the fourth consecutive monthly rise in the value of the FFPI, putting the index at its highest level since June 2011.

    1. I suppose we should expect this rising food price trend to continue for the entire decade as we enter the peak oil phase. This phase began roughly in late 2018 and will last a decade. The early effect has been masked by the Covid economic downturn. It will become more apparent by 2023.
      Energy unrest, in part manifesting as higher food costs.

      By the end of the decade we will be starting a new phase where energy and food supply disparities in various regions will return humanity to a more severe condition of have vs have-nots- that was the norm before the fossil fuel/industrial explosion in wealth that made a middle class a global phenomenon, and also increased the overall number of prosperous peoples.
      Contraction will be extremely painful and disruptive.

  13. Biofuel is one alternative to fossil fuel. I assert that on a large scale it is an environmental tragedy to divert prime wildlife habitat or farmland to fuel production for combustion in cars/trucks/trains/planes and rockets. This can be a long discussion, but I will briefly focus on one aspect- energy yield/unit land-
    How much energy can biofuel production yield from 1 sq meter compared to PV solar . Brazil has the highest efficiency ethanol production (greater than US corn ethanol efficiency for example) and yields 0.55W/m2/yr.

    Conversely, Solar PV projects in sunny locations are roughly yielding 10-15 W/m2/yr.

    That’s a greater than 20 fold advantage of solar!!! vs biofuel energy from a particular piece of land.
    Furthermore, the biofuel is produced on prime forest or farmland, and the solar PV can be on land of low biologic potential.
    https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/08/solar-ammonia-in-a-climate-crisis-almost-certainly-the-most-affordable-of-all-low-carbon-shipping-fuels/

    1. Hickory,

      Definitely biofuel is an alternative to fossil fuel. If you take a country like Sweden they have 60-70% of the country covered by forests on relatively flat ground. I have read someplace that you could get 0.8-0.9 methanol from wood compared to the energy input required in the process. The assumptions are critical here when it comes to process method. What they did a century ago in Norway was to float timber down the biggest lakes and process it by the sea (very little input energy required to do that). Now, that option is blocked due to hydro dams. In Sweden they are talking about synthetic electro fuel, a processed fuel since methanol (from wood) alone is not a good fuel. Biodiesel is not sustainable, since you need imports of palm oil or raps oil to the northern regions. Still the Swedes count on supplying biofuels to heavy transport/agricultural equipment aircrafts that can not be electrified. Essentially, it is possible to exchange electricity to biofuels with a less than 1-1 factor using wood (+ maybe other inputs/processing).

      1. Damn right, Swedes could turn their forest into biofuel. Who needs those damn trees anyway? Who needs those silly animals that live in the forest? In fact, we could do that all over the world. Turn all the forest into fuel. Then we could use that cleared land to produce more biofuel. We need that land far more than we need the animals that live in them. Those silly animals do not benefit us one damn bit. Let’s just get rid of them.

        1. Ron,

          Well said, the perils of anthropocentric thinking leads to the worse genocides. Unfortunately it seems it is an inbuilt gene based hubris.

      2. Europe is importing biofuel from all the other continents on a massive scale and are therefore causing severe environmental degradation of ‘foreign’ lands.
        https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Biofuels-briefing-072021.pdf
        https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/more-than-half-of-eu-biodiesel-made-from-imported-crops-study-finds/

        And Brazil is doing the same thing internally with sugar cane ethanol.
        And the US is doing the same thing internally with corn ethanol.

        People think they can continue with flying, war-making, rocketeering with ‘green fuel’.
        It is simply rape of the natural world.

Comments are closed.