61 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, December 12, 2024”

  1. “According to Rystad Energy’s Global Energy Scenarios 2024 report, over 90% of the global population lives in regions where renewable resources can meet or exceed future energy needs, while more than 80% live in countries dependent on imported fossil fuels. Renewables provide a decentralized, stable, and locally sourced energy supply, reducing reliance on volatile global markets and improving energy security.”

    Quite the incentive at play, in a battle against inertia.

    1. Hickory, while this statement is true…. ” while more than 80% live in countries dependent on imported fossil fuels.”

      I’d ask what percentage of people that live in countries dependent on the importation of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, insulated copper wire, EVs??

      Also please name a country that mines, processes, smelts, then manufactures and transports any of these machines without using fossil fuels?

      1. Yes. This is why the whole “renewable energy” mantra is so deceiving: they think they’re getting their energy from “wind” and “sunshine.” They’re not. They’re getting it from machines, which get it from wind and sunshine. No materials & metals supplied by diesel & coal, no “renewable” energy.

        1. mike b- better to call it non-fossil. renewable is poor naming
          hideaway- these non-fossil mechanisms allow people/a country/this world to get by on much less fossil fuel

          alternatively, countries could just forgo all attempts to generate non-fossil energy and just use up all the fossils willy-nilly

          There is a reason that China is the 800 lb economic gorilla on PV, batteries, ev’s, and a whole host of important minerals. Its because they saw their vulnerability as a big fossil importing country, knew about depletion and geopolitical instability of oil supply, and very importantly- didn’t have naysayers who could put up policy making roadblocks for the purpose of partisanship or personal economic reasons.
          In the US the republican position on energy innovation has severely hobbled the US…we are a midget compared to the potential. And so we are in the process of using up the domestic fossil fuels at a very quick pace. Extremely shortsighted.

          1. Hey Hickory,

            I would suggest that ‘low carbon’ energy seems like the best way to describe wind and solar at the moment.

            There are parts of the world where wind/water/solar electricity sources are a solid part of the mix that contributes to their construction. However, I believe that Hideaway is correct to the extent that no significant buildout currently occurs without fossil fuel use. That makes these fossil fuels some small part of the life cycle production, thus ‘low carbon’. I suspect that the tech exists to make at least solar ‘no-carbon’, but I don’t have the materials expertise for the balance of system electronics to know if that is 100% true.

            1. true that ‘lower carbon’ is part of the attribute of these non-combusting forms of electricity generation, but that is only part of the story. In the case of geothermal, solar, hydro and wind the other big attribute is the free fuel of operation. Nuclear does not fall in this second category of attribute.
              The free fuel part is critical especially for a small operator like an individual who supplies their personal and/or local micro grid requirements. The literal ’empowerment’ of owning your own means of electrical production is an amazing development.

            2. Hickory,

              Good point about the low operational costs being a fundamental aspect. There just isn’t a completely satisfactory, collective description for wind/water/solar/geothermal. I wish we did, because names matter. ‘Renewable’ is on the mark for biofuels, but not for the fiberglass blades in modern wind.

            3. Agree. I’ve resorted to ‘non-fossil’, although its clearly a mixed bag.

              A point that I and Hideaway have bickered about is the degree to which these non-fossil energy sources are net energy positive during their lifespan, making sure to take into account the entire lifecycle energy inputs.
              There are no great conclusive numbers for this determination…very hard to accurately attribute all of the myriad factors that comprise the various inputs.
              I look at it on a practical basis. Just take a look at what all of the new electrical generating facilities around the world are and you get a very strong sense of what makes economic sense, which includes all of the supply stream energy input costs.
              Of course, what exactly a country installs is determined also by their particular resource availability and sense of durability, environmental damage tolerance, and capital availability.

              “Last year, renewables accounted for nearly 86 percent of new electricity capacity worldwide, according to new data from the International Renewable Energy Agency.”

              https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Jul/Renewable_energy_highlights_FINAL_July_2024.pdf?rev=469292ef67144702b515ecb20575ec7d&hash=D407DEA0F6837AFE35ACA3594EEFDFDE

              For the time being, and perhaps indefinitely, we are in the mode where ‘non-fossils’ can serve the role as fossil energy extenders….to some degree. So far we haven’t taken this challenge of extension seriously at all. More of a side hobby/demonstration project.

          2. Hey Hickory,

            OK, I think you’ve convinced me that ‘non-fossil’ is as good a catch-all term as anything.

            Following up on your comment regarding the net energy balance for some of these. For my sake, I’ve read enough of the academic accounting work for wind and PV to be convinced that they are both net energy positive. While both are obviously dependent on the available resource (wind/sunshine), it appears that PV is generally on the order of 10:1 or more and wind even better. That is even with fairly wide boundaries.

            Also agree with your concept of wind/water/solar/geothermal as fossil energy extenders.

            Lots of reasons why there is an apparent lack of urgency, but I often think it’s linked to our human life/attention span relative to the time frame that consequences will unfold across. Plus a good dollop of cognitive dissonance and lack of numeracy.

            1. Hi T Hill ….. ” While both are obviously dependent on the available resource (wind/sunshine), it appears that PV is generally on the order of 10:1 or more and wind even better. That is even with fairly wide boundaries.”

              They are not even close on money terms and money is a claim on future energy use.

              There is widespread belief in this 10/1 or 20/1 rubbish, but no-one can ever show the workings out. Every EROEI paper I’ve ever read totally discounts the background embedded energy in every aspect of modern civilization that has to exist to get these types of numbers.

              The typical example I use is the Aluminium frames for solar panels. They use a number from the Aluminium industry of around 15,000KWh/tonne of Aluminium, which is the Electrical energy in the smelter, with the added diesel of providing the bauxite from the bauxite mine.

              They exclude the cost of building the smelter, the energy embedded in the education and existence of the planners, managers, accountants, lawyers, foreman and every worker in the smelter as if there were no energy cost in providing all of these important aspects of modernity. They also ignore the cost of roads, bridges, ports, machines, trucks, excavators at the mines, and all those operators, only counting the fuel used..

              Any oil well that produces 10/1 or 20/1 return on energy/dollars invested is a wildly profitable venture for the operator, at the wholesale prices paid for the barrels of crude.

              Can you give me an example of a wildly profitable solar farm or wind farm that was fully paid for by the operators, as in no subsidies, or grants and is wildly profitable for the owner at the wholesale price of electricity? I’ve not been able to find any.. Likewise for Nuclear BTW.

              All the work by the workers are necessary for the production and operation of every energy source. We have wildly profitable oil companies, gas companies and coal companies supplying the raw energy at wholesale rates, so profitable that every government takes royalties off the top..

              We have no wildly profitable wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal or any other type of non fossil fuel energy supplier, though some hydro might go close.

              Yet despite this obvious difference, people want to state solar has 10/1 or 20/1 returns of energy, yet they should also have the same returns on investment, like the fossil fuels, though they clearly don’t!!

              Solar by itself is closer to 2/1, better than nuclear, but that is intermittent energy. Once you add storage it comes down greatly with Australia’s largest solar farm being closer to 1.2/1 when the small battery bank’s costs are added (1/2 hr storage at rated capacity!!).

              Solar and wind cannot run our continuous industrial applications which need ongoing cheap energy to be viable. There are no separate Aluminium smelters anywhere in the world planned to operate off grid, which clearly would happen if solar/wind and storage really were cheaper and better than fossil fuels on an energy in energy out basis. It’s reality 101 that no-one wants to pay attention to…

            2. T Hill “it appears that PV is generally on the order of 10:1 or more and wind even better”
              Yes, in a sunny site of deployment that value is likely in the ballpark.
              Closer to 2:1 in Ireland, similar to corn ethanol in the USA.

            3. Hickory the 1.2/1 number I quoted above is for the New England Solar Farm at a latitude of 29.5 degrees South and on the inland side of the Great Dividing Range, the sunnier side, with an expected 5.5hrs/d on average throughout the year for 25 years.

              If they can get $US40/MWh returns for 25 years, which is around the wholesale energy cost over the last decade or so, they return 1.2 times the investment (ignoring interest rates on upfront capital). If we include cost of capital the return is negative..

              Assumptions are….
              1 Solar farm and batteries last 25 years without replacements…
              2 No allowance for solar panel degradation over time, nor batteries.
              3 No allowance for interest on capital investment..
              4 Operating and maintenance costs averaging 2.5% of capital over life of Solar Farm and includes all grid connection and ongoing fees for this.

              10/1 returns for any of these is a joke as they would be wildly profitable if such a number was reached. Name one highly profitable unsubsidised solar farm to prove your case !!

            4. Hideaway,
              Your basic point about boundary limits in analysis of net energy is valid, as are the points you often make about things like declining ore grades in mining. I take your broader point to be about challenges to long term sustainability of the status quo to also be very worthwhile.

              I don’t agree with much else in your recent posts here though.

              First, let’s not mix up finance and physics. EROI is (or should be) physics. Stating that money is a claim on future energy use suggests that the market has some fundamental understanding/link to energy. Take a look at anyplace that has experienced a year or two of hyperinflation and then try to make that case.

              It seems like most people who want to talk about subsidies in the energy sector do so to criticize things like wind and solar. However, direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels span the globe too. For direct subsidies you don’t need to look further for examples than the price at the pump across the world. From an indirect standpoint, you don’t think the US maintains 11 carrier strike groups to prevent seaborne invasion do you?

              In terms of economic success or profitability of PV, have you been following the news out of Pakistan? Perhaps 15-20 GW of PV additions in 2024 alone, or more than 1/3 of existing generating capacity. Lot’s of people voting with their wallets. No subsidies within Pakistan, but it would be fair to point to the overcapacity of chinese manufacturers and the government support/policy that led to that.

              Now back to EROI for PV. What research did you read to come to your conclusion and when did you reach it?

              Have you revisited it over time as PV tech has changed?

              Are you certain that all existing research on this topic has the narrow boundaries that concern you? To cite just one example, before you posted here had you already read Raugei, et al (2017) “Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic systems in regions of moderate insolation : A comprehensive response”. If so, what is your critique of their approach to expanded boundaries? ERoEI for PV in Switzerland of 7-8 with extended boundaries.

              No I’m not going to point to a PV plant that powers/creates other PV plants all by itself. This is a specious argument. I’m also not going to point to a nuclear plant that can replicate itself or a hydro facility that does the same. Yes, 100% electric is a difficult lift for many industrial processes, particularly to replicate the scale currently provided by fossil fuels. Setting aside scale, it does seem likely that it is technically feasible at some level though.

              EROI is (can be) an awesome metric. However, to quote Raugei et al, “there are fundamental aspects of an energy system that EROI does not capture, i.e. the renewable or non-renewable nature of different energy sources, the associated environmental externalities, and the distribution of a system’s energy output over time.” And yes, the accounting behind any EROI calc is complicated and varies between research enough to make comparisons difficult.

            5. THill ………..
              “To cite just one example, before you posted here had you already read Raugei, et al (2017) “Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic systems in regions of moderate insolation : A comprehensive response”. If so, what is your critique of their approach to expanded boundaries? ERoEI for PV in Switzerland of 7-8 with extended boundaries.”

              Really Raugei et al LOL. I’ve debunked this paper already in the distant past because it’s full of BS and doesn’t have any solid numbers, just a plucked out of the air 10/1 EROEI in the conclusion, with a reference of course to a prior paper by the same author..
              What does the prior paper state? It looks mainly at the boundaries set for inclusion, and of course justifies why wide boundaries that include all energy shouldn’t be used, because they all revert to some dollar to energy ratio to explain background energy used in the entire system. So by their own “boundaries” they exclude the greatest energy use..
              The 2016 paper also doesn’t have any actual proof of numbers, but does refer to the Wild-Scholten paper from 2013. BTW using the Wild=Scholten paper’s numbers, the result is a 7.9/1 EROEI for solar in southern Europe, which is vastly different to Switzerland and less than the 10/1 that Raugei gives the hand wave to in the conclusion of 2017 paper…

              So what does the 2013 Mariska de Wild Scholten paper actually show? Here is a link you can look up yourself…
              https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mariska-De-Wild-Scholten/publication/259609641_Energy_payback_time_and_carbon_footprint_of_commercial_photovoltaic_systems/links/5acdc130aca2723a3340158b/Energy-payback-time-and-carbon-footprint-of-commercial-photovoltaic-systems.pdf

              Lots of numbers for the energy used in construction of solar PV, with the source given as “industry”, so impossible to check. Yet check I have in the past to see how accurate they are for aspects like the Aluminium used or the glass used or silicon wafers etc, etc..
              The Aluminium is easy, the Aluminium industry itself is upfront about the costs of the processes being around 15,000KWh/tonne of Aluminium ingot, which is 15KWh per kg of Aluminium..
              According to Wild-Scholten there is 2.13Kg of Aluminium in the frame of a m2 and the output of PV (monocrystalline) was 148W/m2/hr with an average of 3.5hrs/d sunshine throughout. (please note this is way better than my average of 2.8hrs per day rooftop at a latitude of 37 degrees South).
              There is also the claim in the same table of .07 of a yr for the payback time of energy used in making the 2.13kg aluminium frame..

              Except the numbers don’t add up.. .07 of a yr solar PV production comes to 13.2Kwh, (148W/m2 X 3.5hrs/d X 365 d/yr X .07) yet the Aluminium industry itself clearly states that 2.13 Kg of Aluminium takes about 32KWh of energy to produce, without any allowance for the factory existing, the workers involved, the machines used, in the smelter, or the trucks used to transport anything, nor the drivers of the trucks, nor the ports, the roads, the bridges etc… yet every single aspect left out suffers from entropy and has to be replaced using energy over time.

              You can do the same exercise for glass, copper, silicon and every other aspect and find the numbers are on the low side for just the energy content and misses the large energy content of all the workers involved at every stage…
              All those workers, from planners, to management to accountants, lawyers, foremen, and factory workers, use the money they are paid to pay for fuel to get to work, for food at supermarkets, for refrigeration at home, for hot water to have showers etc, etc. Without any of this energy expenditure, there would be no Aluminium smelter operation at all, yet we as a society do not want to count this energy used as it makes the REAL numbers of energy used look very poor for solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal etc..

              If you want to come up with anything that you think proves me incorrect, make sure it actually has some real numbers in it, not references to references, but actual hard numbers which are testable, which I originally went to, to prove we could go to PV and wind as we are damaging our environment terribly with fossil fuels, plus going to go into shortages of them in the near future anyway.
              My research over years looking up every paper I could find on the topic, kept finding disappointment in the methodology used, by setting boundaries that were totally unrealistic..

              We know fossil fuels worked as we built the existing system of civilization upon them, plus high grades of ores, lots of old forests cut for timber and easy to access fossil fuels to boot, while wild mammals, bird, insect and fish populations all shrunk drastically.
              Everyone of those aspects are leaving us, yet somehow people get comfort in believing in the fairy tales produced by the solar, wind and nuclear industries…

            1. The UK has pretty much quit the coal fired electricity business, it’s a silly comparison.

              On a vaguely related note, China has a population of about 1.4 bn and the UK about 70 million. So ceteris paribus you would expect the UK to burn about 5% as much coal as China, bringing your 900 years down to about 45.

              Nationalist comparisons like this are often based on a naive misunderstanding of world population is distributed across political borders. The UK is the size of a medium-sized Chinese province like Hunan. That would be a better comparison. Either you don’t get, or you hope we don’t.

          4. Hickory …. “hideaway- these non-fossil mechanisms allow people/a country/this world to get by on much less fossil fuel”

            Countries buy imported goods with currency, whether fossil fuels or wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. The latter are finished goods and have a much higher embedded energy cost which manifests as higher dollar cost when purchasing..

            If the country tries to operate an internal high energy industry, they will need the fossil fuel inputs to provide the cheap power, even if imported. They will not run a high energy industry off imported solar panels, wind turbines and batteries because it’s way too expensive in dollar terms and the industry couldn’t compete on world markets.

            If they don’t ‘make’ anything then how do they pay for either the fossil fuels or the solar, wind and batteries? They would need either on an ongoing basis as the fossil fuels are used up, while the solar, wind and batteries suffer from entropy and continually need replacing, plus all the other ancillary bits that go with them.

            You need to shift your focus from how we use energy as consumers, to how we make all the machines required in a modern civilization that requires huge energy inputs and consistent energy inputs as that is the most efficient use of high energy requirements.

            The intermittency of solar, wind and enough batteries just doesn’t work for this on the scale required for modern civilization. Without the scale we lose the complexity, which feeds back into the collection of the materials needed for modern civilization, which rely upon increasing complexity and energy because of the lowering of ore grades, deeper mines, more remote locations, smaller grind size and harder ore indexes.

            We’ve had increasing energy usage over the last 50 years, with more energy going to the collection of energy, while collection of metals and minerals has also required greater energy inputs, all while efficiency gains have suffered from the laws of diminishing returns.
            What has happened, is less energy for everything else, which is why we have gone to a globalised civilization requiring a 6 continent supply chain, which is more efficient than having many separate factories around the world doubling and tripling up on production of ‘widgets’.

            1. I’m pretty well aware of that dynamic and the extent.
              That is why I say the non-fossil energies allow a country/the world to extend the fossil fuels, rather than outright replace them at a scale anywhere close to entirety.

              I think we both agree that a downsizing is order, and that collectively we’ve missed the opportunity to be proactive on that by 4-5 decades….you and I were adults and aware of it all along. Yet we were just another couple guys paying for a good seat on the bulldozer.

            2. Couldn’t agree more Hideaway
              If wind and solar are so glorious was is Germany failing? Why?
              No one is willing to answer that question because they would have to admit they’re wrong about renewable energy.
              Another foolish position is to say that renewable subsidies as justified because fossil fuel, particularly oil, also receives subsidies. True but completely wrong and different.
              Renewable subsidies are supplied to the producers because without them it’s a failed business model. The result are higher prices to the end users that diminishes their productive capacity. Which shrinks the economy.
              Oil and gas production are taxed and subjected to royalties. This is why the UK was relatively solvent throughout the North Sea boom but now is in full collapse. Oil and gas subsidies reduced the price at the pump increasing productivity of the end user sparking higher economic activity which increased taxable income. This expanse the economy.

              One thing to always remember is strong economies are built around the personal productivity of its citizens . Meaning we can only be rich when our neighbors are rich. In a contracting economy this becomes impossible which is where we are now. The rich are only able to be such because of poverty. History teaches us this never lasts long as the poor population eventually rebels.

        2. MKE B
          they think they’re getting their energy from “wind” and “sunshine.” They’re not.

          No, solar energy comes from the sun and the wind provides wind energy. You are confusing the power plants with the energy source. Or do you also claim that internal combustion engines don’t run on oil pumped out of the ground? The news would be a big surprise to the oil industry.

  2. After reading the previous Open Thread several of the comments brought to mind the Vietnam war expression, “ We are here to destroy your village so we can save it”.
    I’m referring to the U.K. and Germany. The leaders say that at ALL COST the unrelenting effort to reduce carbon emissions must continue. As I see it, their standard of living is relentlessly declining.
    The second comment that comes to mind was Al Gore, in 1996, telling to world that the earth had only ten years to arrest the increase of carbon dioxide in the air or we would pass the “tipping point” where life on earth was doomed. I’m paraphrasing. Rush Limbaugh, on his website, had the speech and a 10 year count down clock to remind people of his prediction.
    In 1996 the carbon dioxide concentration as measured in Hawaii was about 360 ppm, today the reading is about 425 ppm. One cannot argue that. 1. No Arctic ice free summers 2. Polar bears are thriving. 3. It still snows in the U.K. 4 No island nations have disappeared due to rising sea levels. 5. The world’s coral reefs are healthy. 6. People aren’t dying by the millions due to famine. (World production has steadily increased).
    Spending our resources to reduce and capture carbon is as productive as hiring 50 guys to dig holes and 50 more to fill them back in.

    1. Ervin,

      You are aware I imagine that there are a lot of people who dig holes and others that fill holes in the World, the number is much larger than 50. Climate change is real and Limbaugh is a moron.

      Look at the Exxon Mobil webcast from December 11 where they talk about their plans for CCS.

      https://event.webcasts.com/viewer/event.jsp?ei=1686800&tp_key=1320d23f2e

      Slides at link below

      https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_16d40ed397124ba8e89c69163e8e4b9b/exxonmobil/db/2261/22346/file/Corporate Plan Update – FINAL.pdf

      1. Dennis
        I expected better from you. Please give the link that proves without question the carbon dioxide is the trigger for the world’s temperature. Your hole digging response is totally empty of reason and logic. Facts sir, Facts.

        1. Ervin,

          Where do you think oil, matural gas and coal come from? How about iron, and aluminum? Lots of holes are dug, just the way it is, that is indeed a fact. Anything can be questioned, there are those that think smoking cigarettes is good for you and others that believe the World is flat. Scientists understand that excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to warming.

          See IPCC.

          1. Dennis
            My point about digging holes, is the thinking it’s a productive enterprise to put 100 people to work digging and filling holes in the ground. Yes they will be earning a living but nothing of value is produced.
            When the governments of the U.K. and Germany have the countries carbon footprint the controlling issue for spending the taxpayers money it’s obvious that the countries are worse off. The money is spent and nothing of value is produced.
            I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear from the start.

            1. Ervin
              It doesn’t make sense for countries like the UK or Germany to continue importing fuel and spewing the fumes into the atmosphere. Reducing carbon means switching from consumption to investment.

        3. Ervin,

          How do you explain the discrepancy in surface temperature between mercury and venus ?

          1. Iron Mike

            How do you explain why Saudi Arabia is consistently up to 10c hotter than The Central African Republic in summer even though it is much further away from the Equator and should be cooler.

            1. Loadsofoil,

              Well there is a number of reason. Ill give the few obvious ones:

              Firstly equatorial climates receives the most sunlight however most of the energy goes into evaporation. Desert climates having little moisture most of the energy goes into raising air temperature.

              Rock and sand heat up much quicker than water. They also lose heat much quicker hence the lower night temperatures in arid regions. While in the equatorial regions there is little change between day and night temperatures. This is because of heat capacity of water compared with sand and rocks.

              High evaporation rates in the equator means more cloud cover, which means less sunlight reaches the surface. Even though this effect traps infrared radiation, the net effect of this is cooler temperatures. Compared to arid regions where there is little cloud cover.

              There are also more complex reasons such as the movement of hot air from the equator to the poles being diverted via the Coriolis effect to the horse latitudes which happen to be where we have big deserts. +/- 30 degrees of the equator in the tropic of cancer and capricorn.

            3. It´s been known since the late 1800s that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, anyone saying else is just very poorly informed in my view. Discovered (but not only) by a Nobel laurelate, albeit with some disputable traits, as most scientists:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
              And don´t mention Methane…

    1. According to WIkipedia, 2 or the 3 wild type strains of polio have been eradicated worldwide. In 2024 so far, 72 cases of the third strain have been identified in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is hoped to eradicate the final strain in the next couple of years, after the Taliban allowed the resumption of the vaccine programme relatively unhindered. In the extremely conservative tribal areas in Pakistan, the access and vaccination rates are lower.

      Cases of polio evolved from the use of weakened live polio virus in the vaccines continue in 22 countries, mostly in Africa. As the wild types have been eradicated in these countries, it should be easier to eradicate these secondary infections by suspending and vaccinations and treating the cases to prevent their spreading and evolving more virulent strains.

      Polio isn’ t gone yet, but with continued effort it may be in a few years, if geopolitics, another pandemic or global collapse doesn’t get in the way.

  4. Hey Kleiber,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnIG-i2WCfg

    Andre posted this in previous thread about the most credible UFO sighting (the USA navy sighted 12 that hovered for 2 weeks with AEGIS / Sky 1 radar system…the best in the WORLD!).

    Kleiber tried to make me sound like a fool.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeay5KkzYYk

    New Jersey unexplained (Unidentified Flying Objects) all over the news a week later.

    I am not suggesting these are ALIEN. They are UNIDENTIIFIED, atleast publlicly.

    I accept your apology Kleiber ( just jokes!! all good!!)

    1. Its the USA military testing Battery Powered flight propulsion….

      That is why….

      “We don’t know what they are, But they are NOT A THREAT”

      How could you not know what they are? and determine they are not a THREAT!

    2. I find the latest video of something over an airliner taxiing the other week to be more credible, since it was on video, in broad daylight, and seemingly moved like a drone of some description. Same with the vehicles supposedly buzzing RAF Lakenheath.

      They probably are some new surveillance craft being used by another state actor if anything.

      I maintain the Tic Tac was a visual aberration. *pouts*

    1. We need to deploy some heavy duty A/C to that place. I’ll get the ice cube trays.

    1. I am skeptical. I wouldn’t really call it reserves, you can say it is possible there is that much oil deposits there. But reserves no. Not until it can be demonstrably shown to be recoverable.

      1. I also am skeptical. This story initially came out a few months ago. I can’t find any evidence that any wells have actually been drilled, and until oil is penetrated and logged with the drill bit, it’s just a prospect.
        Maybe they conducted a seismic survey to demonstrate that a big anticline exists? Or maybe they collected some oil-rich cores from the seafloor?

  7. Poor old Earth about to be wacked again!

    TRUMP SET TO REVERSE BIDEN’S EV SUPPORT AND TAILPIPE EMISSIONS RULES

    “Team Trump is proposing radical changes to the U.S. policy toward electric vehicles and tailpipe emissions, including axing the EV incentives and the government mandate for federal EV fleets, and rolling back the Biden Administration’s rules on tailpipe emissions and fuel economy standards, Reuters reports, citing a draft document it has seen.”

    https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Trump-Set-to-Reverse-Bidens-EV-Support-and-Tailpipe-Emissions-Rules.html

      1. Despite the acceleration of the destruction of the biosphere, I still think nature will strike back in the end.

        I just no longer believe in the exponential growth of this system. It’s slowing everywhere, but nobody can really talk about it out loud. The only thing allowed in polite and public conversation is “infinite growth forever”.

        We are, even if we try to deny it, a part of nature, and nature will eventually get even with us for this denial. In this case, nature says “you people overheated me, and my oceans are full of carbon, I can’t take anymore, and I have no mechanism to cool you down other than to eliminate you”.

        So expect heat deaths, impacts on agriculture, etc., moving forward.

        1. Nature is not a conscious entity. There is no “getting even.”

          There is only overshoot and correction.

    1. “Once upon a time, we were all communists before civilization enslaved us, imposing upon us hierarchies, and the ideology of private property… and the creation of religion.”

    2. Weekendpeak,

      That is a very interesting piece of work, thanks for pointing it out. I’m curious what prompted you to share this one?

      Impressive data acquisition and excellent analysis.

      I’ve only worked one project in Florida ‘stone’, so was reminded about just how poor the soil/rock is to support major civil works. The contrast between the physical properties of what is described as limestone in this environment vs elsewhere in the world is hard to wrap your head around if you haven’t physically seen this stuff yourself.

      For all the fancy data acquisition though, the paper really does little more than speculate about the underlying causes of the deformations. Their hypotheses do make sense though. Hard not to look at this and wonder at the logic of this type of infrastructure in this location.

  9. Iron Mike

    10 out of 10

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BickMFHAZR0

    I can’t find the scientific paper on very recent studies of how much energy trees use but the temperature difference between The democratic Republic Of Congo and Egypt or Saudi Arabia gives one a good idea.

    Trees create a perfect environment for the storage of water and the gradual release of water over many months continuously cooling. The wet cool air releases the water as rain further cooling and the cycle continues.

    This cooling cycle is being broken everywhere, large areas cleared get much hotter, the air holds on to the moisture far longer and when it does release the water we get deluges.

    Apparently there are 3 billion trees in the United Kingdom, the world smashed down that many in 3 months.

    We are creating deserts on every continent. The mass starvation that is already starting will remove enough humans for the world to regenerate. People fighting for a handful of rice and a cup of fresh water. There are already several countries where this is happening.

  10. So, on and on it goes!

    COAL USE TO REACH NEW PEAK – AND REMAIN AT NEAR-RECORD LEVELS FOR YEARS

    The IEA said the coal rebound, after a slump during the global Covid pandemic, means consumption of the fossil fuel is now on track to rise to a new peak of 8.77bn tonnes by the end of the year – and could remain at near-record levels until 2027. The Paris-based agency blamed power plants for the growing use of coal over the last year, particularly in China which consumes 30% more of the polluting fuel than the rest of the world put together.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/18/coal-use-to-reach-new-peak-and-remain-at-near-record-levels-for-years

  11. Commentary by Ruth Ben-Ghiat:

    Elites have repeatedly made alliances with autocrats. Elites retain power and privileges, and have the potential to expand their profits, in return for supporting the autocrat no matter what he says or does. This support can include legitimizing his policies, helping to spread his propaganda, discouraging criticism of him and his government, and giving him an aura of respectability in the national and international arenas.

    Such alliances are seen by elites as insurance against becoming a target of the leader, who often goes after the most powerful just to show that no one is safe. In an established autocracy, any criticism of the leader, or refusals to accept offers of collaboration, can be dangerous.

    Many Russian elites who spent years being loyal servants of Russian President Vladimir Putin have met with untimely deaths since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Others have faced prison for resisting hostile takeovers of their businesses by the Kremlin and its allies. In China, even the most powerful people can simply disappear. In Turkey, no one is safe from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s thirst for mass jailing and litigation. Journalists, judges, and businesspeople have gone to prison, and over 150,000 Turks, including a former Olympic swimmer, have been harassed with insult suits.

    This comparative context makes the unforced capitulations of many American elites to Trump more puzzling. These individuals live in a democracy and still have freedoms and agency. Yet they are acting almost as though they already live under an autocracy. Even the immensely wealthy, including the world’s second richest man, who would have the resources to deal with whatever comes their way, seem to be pursuing strategies of self-protection that involve obeying in advance.

    Instead of uniting and standing up to Trump’s intimidation tactics, they are folding and also backpedaling from actions taken in the past that could be seen as disloyal or contrary to Trumpian and MAGA interests. In doing so, they are helping Trump’s personality cult by already treating him as the dictator he fervently wants to be.

    Jeff Bezos is one of the billionaire newspaper owners who refused to have their papers endorse a presidential candidate, for fear that their editorial boards would anger Trump by supporting Vice President Kamala Harris. The other, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, has blocked Los Angeles Times editorials critical of Trump’s nominees for Cabinet positions and has requested that his journalists “take a break from writing about Trump” altogether.

    Other elites are motivated by greed, or attached to neoliberal visions of government. They see Trump’s presidency as the final push to free government from excessive regulations. They are all for a political system founded on restricting or eliminating the rights of the many, while giving far more liberties to the few. They remember how Trump removed countless checks on the exploitation of the economy, the workforce, and the environment during his first term.

    Of course, they ignore informed predictions of the negative outcomes of these and other proposed policies, such as the October 2024 letter signed by 23 Nobel Prize winners that endorsed Harris based on a forecast of volatility for the U.S. and global economy if Trump returned to the White House.

    Risk management, cast as pragmatism, also prompts capitulations in the media and business worlds. Some elites see tamping down criticism of the President-elect as a calculated act of harm prevention for themselves and their companies. This is likely part of the reason ABC folded so calamitously to Trump by settling a defamation lawsuit brought by Trump for $15 million, which also stipulated that anchor George Stephanopoulos and ABC apologize to Trump and pay an additional $1 million of Trump’s legal fees.

    ABC’s parent company, Disney, is no stranger to autocratic aggressions, having weathered years of harassment from Florida Governor Ron DeSantis that started when the company pushed back against the state’s “Don’t Say Gay” law. Debra O’Connell, the Disney executive responsible for ABC News, recently met with Trump’s future chief of staff, Susie Wiles, in Florida. This is perhaps a larger-scale version of the “we’ve got to work together” pilgrimage of Morning Joe anchors Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski to Mar-a-Lago to “reset” relations with Trump.

    Republican political and religious elites have long ago found their places in the MAGA landscape. The GOP is now a personal tool of Trump, and is kept in line by him through the autocrat’s classic tools of threat and ritual humiliation. Evangelical Christians, far-right Catholics, and Orthodox Jews have all been summoned to surround the leader with an aura of holiness whenever his corruption and violence have been exposed.

    Now Trump and his enablers are leaning on military, national security, and other government elites to get them to support his authoritarian presidency. That means harassing them to cleanse critics from their ranks and censor knowledge of histories and information that might compromise that support.

    This is why the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, and many GOP members of Congress launched a pressure campaign against the United States Naval Academy in October to disinvite me as a speaker. The History Department of the Naval Academy had chosen me to deliver the prestigious Bancroft Lecture, but then the invitation was retracted, and the lecture postponed indefinitely. 17 members of Congress signed a letter claiming the Naval Academy would be violating the Hatch Act to have a “partisan” historian deliver an anti-Trump lecture, and other Representatives, such as Keith Self of Texas, waged their own campaigns.

    The Naval Academy and its aggressors knew that I was not going to speak about Trump, but rather about the fates of militaries governed by authoritarians such as Augusto Pinochet and Putin. The aim of the MAGA mob was to force a public capitulation by the powerful and esteemed Naval Academy. It was a rehearsal for the compromises the military will be asked to make if Trump deploys the armed forces for domestic repression.

    Getting everyone to bend the knee is the goal of the autocrat, who gets a special pleasure when the most powerful bow to him and say: I will make your path forward as smooth as possible. I will decline to counter your fictions with inconvenient facts, and I will help you to cleanse your world of critics.

    Those who enter into alliances with Trump forget the lessons of history. This portrait in a 1931 book by journalist Curzio Malaparte of how Adolf Hitler treated those who were helping him get into power reminds us that such alliances often end badly.

    “He channels his brutality into humbling their pride, crushing their freedom of conscience, diminishing their individual merits and transforming his supporters into flunkeys stripped of all dignity. Like all dictators, Hitler loves only those whom he can despise.”

    1. For all those who think coal is going away….

      Ponder this scenario…

      Peak Oil bites really hard in some countries…

      The USA and Australia have 40% of the world coal reserves.

      Business men are going to see a huge opportunity for CTL to these countries with a complete negotiating advantage.

      And yes…Andre thinks climate change is a devastating problem.

      You think MAGA Trumpites with coal mines will care? not me!

  13. The Economist on how data has replaced oil as the world’s most valuable commodity.

    https://archive.ph/ck2OX

    This shows when end of growth predictions are premature: Most of the world’s growth in the future will be in information, and efficiency in computing can be improved a millionfold at least. There are physical limits, of course, but we aren’t anywhere close to them.

    The article is more interested in the anti-trust problem, but it looks like the train has already left the station, with crazy American oligarchs collaborating with developing country dictators to shut down democracy in the United States and Europe. Those oligarchs get their money from data.

    1. Alimbiquated,

      You note that “efficiency in computing can be improved a millionfold at least.”

      How do you define efficiency in this context? Energy consumption per chip per some benchmark computation?

      Are there some good references that you can point to for this expected improvement?

      Thanks!

      1. Energy consumption per bit processed.

        This idea goes back to Claude Shannon’s classic 1948 paper. A basic operation on two bits, like AND or OR, outputs one bit. So you’ve gone from four possibilities to two, which can be seen as reduced entropy. Using Boltzmann’s math you can calculate the minimum energy you need for that, and it turns out to be small compared to energy consumption of current computers.

        Meanwhile in the real world, energy consumption per operation continues to fall quickly, suggesting we aren’t near any limit. And estimates of energy consumption per calculation in biological brains make electronic computers look pretty crude.

        Obviously none of this is lost on the industry. For neural networks, now all the rage, they switched from CPUs, originally designed for general processing, to GPUs, originally designed for graphics. Now they are moving to new designs that only work for neural networks.

        Also none of this even addresses software bloat, which is mostly a result of wasting computation resources to reduce design costs. Which is a polite way to say shitty design.

Comments are closed.