247 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, July 16, 2017”

  1. I wanted to post something on this thread to start a conversation with a more upbeat theme than Ron’s post re Africa. To be clear I’m not interested in pretending that what is happening with global ecosystems can be solved with just technology. It can’t! However I also think that there are some directions in which humanity can at least try to steer itself towards a more efficient use of resources and energy together with new paradigms of economic and political change.

    I find the contrast between what I see happening in Europe vs the US to be quite stark! Most of us here are aware of what is happening in the US though perhaps somewhat less aware of the paths that are being embarked upon in Europe. I have strong ties to Europe by ancestry and extended family who live there.
    I also happen to live in both North and South America having homes and family in Brazil and the US.
    I would like to see the US on a very different path than the one the current administration has chosen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsSdv0FBUuw
    A clean future: Vice President Maroš Šefčovič & Solar Impulse Foundation Chairman Bertrand Piccard

    ŠEFČOVIČ AND PICCARD: THE FUTURE IS CLEAN
    Submitted by News team on Thu, 06/04/2017 – 15:35

    http://www.eusew.eu/%C5%A1ef%C4%8Dovi%C4%8D-and-piccard-future-clean

    The future is clean
    Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič and Solar Impulse founder Bertrand Piccard set out plans for the transition to a clean energy system.

    In a live video chat on 28 March, Vice-President for the Energy Union Maroš Šefčovič and Bertrand Piccard, founder of Solar Impulse — the project for the first round-the-world solar flight — discussed their plans to promote a future successful clean economy.

    The focus is on innovation. Prof. Piccard has created a World Alliance for Efficient Solutions. This aims to bring together 1 000 profitable solutions by the next conference of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change in November 2018 – COP 24. “Renewable energies and energy efficiency are profitable and create jobs,” he says.

    Meanwhile, the European Commission wants to make it easier for consumers to produce clean energy in their homes, to become ‘prosumers’, says Vice-President Šefčovič. It also plans to present a clean mobility package before summer 2017, to be followed by other measures supporting cleaner transport technologies.

    1. Here’s an idea that was inspired by the way the Solar Impulse aircraft used solar power to climb to it’s maximum cruising altitude during the day and then basically glide to it’s minimum altitude overnight before drawing on battery power to maintain altitude.

      Build a refrigerator with thermal storage. The primary coolant loop goes into the thermal storage unit that could be a block of ice. What would would be the coolant loop in a normal fridge then becomes a secondary loop. During the day, when solar power is available, the thermal storage is cooled by the primary coolant loop, to as far below freezing as is economically feasible. When solar power is not available, cooling power is drawn from the thermal storage by the secondary loop, until it approaches freezing (melting) at which point the primary coolant loop is reactivated. I searched the Internet for “fridge with thermal storage” and while there are no products one can buy yet, the idea is certainly out there including a couple of patents.

      If civilization does not collapse first, I am pretty sure such devices are going to be all the vogue in the future, especially in tropical climates.

      1. Yep, I agree. I can think of lots of ways to store excess energy. Heat and compressed air are two that come to mind as well. Raising weights, springs and spinning high density fly wheels and a combination of all of the above. There are lots of things happening with battery technology too.

      2. Batteryless Energy Systems are possible via “Overbuilding” PV
        Thermal beats eChem for Storage any-day. : Use Four+ 60 cell PV panels .. 150-300Vdc into a Meanwell HLG320-30A or 600 “Type A” — Energy Limited – Isolated Stable Power Output with Adjustable Voltage and Peak Current. Rock Stable 25V @ 10-30A. even on Cloudy days. Mount Grounded HLG Driver near the panel for Safety which avoids running metal conduit – * Warning High Voltage DC is Lethal * – Use an electrical or Solar pro if you have limited electrical experience or know-how. Power many Freezers and more. Freezer needs to be below ~ -12 C at all times – PURE PV power is an order of magnitude more economical without eChem. Add OPTIONAL Fuse & LFP Batteries for Lighting only if needed – set Final charge setpoints and best to add a Low Voltage disconnect. A Complete Energy system with 4Parts that can last decades. – Panels, Mounting, cables & Isolated CV CC Driver/Converter.

        Note: Reference the International Meanwell HLG datasheets. Such “Universal” Drivers not UL certified for DC input in North America.

        An Unplugged 24V “loaded” chest freezer can stay below Zero C for a week+
        Boost Thermal Storage with phase change paks :
        https://www.amazon.com/Thermosafe/b/ref=bl_dp_s_web_3615867011?ie=UTF8&node=3615867011&field-lbr_brands_browse-bin=Thermosafe

        Also Search for 24 volt Freezers – Many new products entering market.

        1. The simplest ‘fridge is about as old as time. Dig a big hole and place an old culvert or pvc pipe into it on end. Construct a simple dumbwaiter, or use a small boat winch for about $15.00. Place items needing to be chilled in a predator proof box and lower away.

          Old folks of past used their wells. My Grandparents had an ice box in Minnestota, then an eventual fridge. I have a shop in the shade that seems to be quite temp. stable year round, even on 30 deg C days. In fact, if our onshore winds stop we will spend a hot afternoon playing pool out in ‘the pub’ whiloe dinner cooks in the house.

        2. Some interesting ideas there, Longtimber. I liked the idea if the Meanwell.

          I use ORH electrolyte bottles, as they are square and strong, lining the freezer compartment door door. With 150g/l salt solution they freeze/thaw around -8 or -9C. Take it up to 180 g/l that moves to around -12C. Provide a good buffer and have saved me in a couple of power cuts.

          NAOM

  2. Weaning themselves off fossil fuel imports is a strategic move for countries without their own supplies or adequate supplies. Putting money toward this is likely to pay more rewards for them than military spending.

    1. It is also a shift from consumption to investment, which improves the country’s current account.

      Simply taxing fuel is a great way to push this forward with minimal government intervention.

  3. Fusion and Batteries- the game remains the same:

    Battery breakthrough? Researchers at Tokyo Institute of Technology have devised a low-cost, scalable approach to developing all-solid-state batteries, improving prospects for scaling up the technology for widespread use in electric vehicles, communications and other industrial applications. Described in a paper in the ACS journal Chemistry of Materials, the approach involves substituting germanium in the solid electrolyte for two more readily available elements: tin and silicon. (7/15)
    (I wouldn’t hold your breath-we have been here before)

    Fusion’s latest delay: We will have to wait until the second half of the century for fusion reactors to start generating electricity, according to the latest version of a European “road map” drawn up by scientists and engineers at EUROfusion. (7/12)

    2. Hi Weekend Peak,

      If relevant to oil and natural gas it goes in the OPEC thread this week (and usually the top post listed most weeks. Otherwise it goes in the Non-Petrol thread.

  6. Some further musings about battery storage technologies and seafood.

    First broad ‘evidence-based’ comparison shows similar capital cost evolution among technologies including lithium-ion and flow batteries

    https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/energy-storage-prices-forecast-to-tumble/3007717.article

    Energy storage is needed to avoid wasting excess electricity from solar and wind – and a new analysis finds many options are surprisingly affordable. Oliver Schmidt and colleagues at Imperial College London see technology costs falling similarly rapidly as deployment expands. ‘There is no fundamental advantage of a certain technology in terms of capital costs,’ Schmidt tells Chemistry World.

    While cost projections exist for individual technologies, the Imperial team noted that there was no evidence-based comparison between them. The researchers therefore applied an ‘experience rate’ approach to eleven vehicle, electricity grid and home energy storage technologies. The method looks at how costs have fallen as manufacturers have deployed systems and learned how to make them more cheaply. Projecting that these trends will continue can then be used as an indicator of future costs.

    Schmidt’s team found capital costs of home and grid-scale systems generally heading towards $340/kWh (£263/kWh) once 1TWh of capacity is installed for each technology. For comparison, the UK consumed 337.6TWh of electricity in 2016. This was true for hydrogen fuel cells and lead acid batteries for homes, lithium-ion batteries on home and grid-scale and grid-scale vanadium redox flow batteries.

    That started me thinking about the cost curves of biofuels such as the recent Craig Venter/Exxon collaboration to increase lipid production in algae vs solar, wind and battery storage technologies. At the end of the day, without getting too deep into EROEI calculations for biofuels, they still have to be combusted in turbines, or ICE engines to produce useful work. As Tony Seba has made it abundantly clear to us ICE automobile, 2000 moving parts. AI controlled EV, 20 moving parts. ICE 17%-20% efficient, electric motors 95% efficient or better… transporting or piping liquid fuels, large molecules vs transmitting electrons, again no contest! I have a hunch Craig Venter played Exxon like a fiddle and made out like a bandit, more power to him!

    If I were young person starting my studies today, I might become a biochemist focusing on using technology such as CRISPR to genetically enhance our cousins, the lowly Ascidacea’s, already rather stunning capability to accumulate Vanadium from the surrounding sea water.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010854514002380

    Abstract
    Several families of ascidians accumulate extremely high levels of vanadium in their blood cells. The concentration of vanadium has been determined in each species; the highest concentration, found in Ascidia gemmata, reaches 350 mM, corresponding to 107 times that of sea water. How and why ascidians accumulate vanadium in a highly selective manner and at such extremely high levels have yet to be determined. To address these questions, our research group sought to identify the genes and proteins responsible for the accumulation and reduction of vanadium in vanadocytes, a type of blood cell, as well as the process of vanadium transport from sea water to blood cells through the branchial sac, intestine, and blood plasma. Here, we review the accumulation steps as a system, especially those related to the concentration and chemical species of vanadium at each step. A comprehensive analysis on each organ has already revealed several categories of protein families, such as vanadium-binding proteins and vanadium transporters. Herein, we also discuss the mechanisms by which ascidians selectively accumulate vanadium ions from a biochemical viewpoint.

    Elon Musk if you are listening the future is in 3D Ocean Farms raising Ascidians, They’re even edible so not much waste after you extract the Vanadium for your Flow batteries.. 😉

    1. “That started me thinking about the cost curves of biofuels such as the recent Craig Venter/Exxon collaboration to increase lipid production in algae vs solar, wind and battery storage technologies. At the end of the day, without getting too deep into EROEI calculations for biofuels, they still have to be combusted in turbines, or ICE engines to produce useful work.”

      Tad Patzek had done some good work on bio ethanol which basically can be used as argument agianst other biofuels. A few years back Hartmut Michel, a top expert in the field of phytosynthesis, wrote an quite sobering editorial in Angewandte Chemie on biofuels.

      My take since 2012 is: A PV produces around almost 2 orders of magnitude more net energy per square meter than plants, if you add an thermal conversion of plant material into electrcity you aer in the 200 fold range. And with plants you have a competition between fuel and bread.
      As long as natural photosynthesis with 1% efficiency is the limiting step, there is no chance that biofuels can compete. Algea are IMHO a snake oil.

      “I have a hunch Craig Venter played Exxon like a fiddle and made out like a bandit, more power to him!”

      here the issue is a littel bit more nuanced: Venter obviously planned to convert bacteria, that was first reduced to pure household functions (240 genes), into small chemical reactors by adding certain genes for the desired chemical reactions.

      This concept has not worked until now according to biochemists with expertise in technical enzyme reactions). The reason is that many reactions need additional factors for which genes have to be included, suddenly the reactor beomes very complex again.

      Venters selling point was IMHO not energy but chemicals.

      1. Good points, Ulenspiegel,

        Especially: Venter’s selling point was IMHO not energy but chemicals.
        I have a great respect for his expertise in synthetic biology and genome editing techniques applied to genetic modification of organisms.

        In any case I will try to find and read these papers you mention by Tad Patzek and Hartmut Michel. I have done some reading on these topics and already lean toward the fact that there is no chance that biofuels can compete. Algae are IMHO a snake oil.
        Maybe we should make GMO snakes…
        Tschüß 😉

  7. WOW! There are very few things nowadays that I would say totally blow my mind!
    This did!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKm0eRfFFfo

    Published on Jun 23, 2017
    The Underwater Forest, a new documentary by Ben Raines produced by This is Alabama, details the discovery and exploration of an ancient cypress forest found sixty feet underwater in the Gulf of Mexico, due south of Gulf Shores, Alabama. The forest dates to an ice age more than 60,000 years ago, when sea levels were about 400 feet lower than they are today.

  8. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

    There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

    1. Oh, those of us in scientific circles have been discussing these issues for… at least 30 years. Journal of Negative Results was founded partly to try to counteract the worst problem.

        1. There has been a huge increase in the number of scientists and scientific articles output over the past decades. While the amount of good science has increased, the amount of junk science has increased a lot faster, because increasing competition has put a lot of pressure on scientists to publish or perish.

          It was predictable, but nothing was done to enforce scientific standards over a much larger scientific population fiercely competing for funding.

          Another predictable phenomenon has been the emergence of predatory journals that will publish anything (even garbled text) on internet for a significant fee (almost no cost to them), claiming to be legit journals and using without permission names of real scientists as editors to fool unsuspecting not too astute scientists.

          The situation has got so rotten in the scientific journal world (a big business with lots of profits) that a dog named Dr Olivia Doll with a fake curriculum reviewed several articles and was named on several editorial boards, even making it to associate editor in one journal.

          http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/the-perth-dog-thats-probably-smarter-than-you/news-story/a4de0d201ce420e0302c69532a399419

          Science is so full of shit that it would require a deep cleaning, but very little is being done. It is going to come out of this situation with a huge loss of credibility. A lot of what is being produced has no value, but it still costs good money. Mostly tax money.

            1. Javier is a classic example of projection — complaining about the quality of science, but then dumping numerology on a climate denier’s blog.

  9. Specializations, such as nurse, engineer, scientist, teacher, doctor, lawyer, etc., are all ‘monocultures‘. And we all should know at least a little of some of the problems with monocultures, and not just the agro ones.

    Specializations all serve to detach from, and as detachments of, reality in a myriad of ways.

    “While the video, Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast?, both challenges and suggests that humans may, in that example’s context, not be smarter, what seems apt is that this kind of effect may be a natural function or emergent property across different levels of scale, complexity and so-called intelligence. So, where humans are larger and more complex than yeast, intelligence may not matter if a kind of systemic lock-in blindness, lethal mutation or complexity-without-sufficient-braking/reverse-capabilities is there because of intelligence insofar as where its increasing manifestations of complexity (complicated by political/elitist/pecking-order dynamics) may have a paradoxical tendency to reduce control and increase a kind of stupidity over that complexity, as per the Iron Law of Oligarchy. According to Wikipedia, it states that…

    “…all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations. The relative structural fluidity in a small-scale democracy succumbs to ‘social viscosity’ in a large-scale organization. [Accordingly] …democracy and large-scale organization are incompatible.”…

    Similarly, Jason Godesky writes,

    “Why do complex societies become vulnerable to the very kinds of stress which, at an earlier time in its history, the society in question would simply shrug off? Tainter’s answer lies with complexity, itself, and the law of diminishing returns. As a society becomes more complex, greater complexity becomes more costly. The escalation of complexity becomes increasingly difficult to maintain, until it finally becomes impossible.” ~ Jason Godesky

    And then there is a looming storm cloud overhead that threatens that an escape from lock-in may only happen in lock-step with the logic of the system:

    “According to him, the dystopia of the Wachowski Brothers’ Matrix trilogy is already here: the technological-industrial ‘machine’ is already running the world, a world where individual humans are but insignificant little cogs with barely any autonomy. No single human being – neither the most powerful politician, nor the most powerful businessman – has the power to rein in the system. They necessarily have to follow the inexorable logic of what has been unleashed.” ~ G Sampath on John Zerzan

    This kind of idea is also reflected in Jay Hanson’s Overshoot Loop article.

    That said, humans may be unlikely to significantly change or give up their relatively locally-perceived and simply-perceived lifestyles until their lifestyles give them up and/or things get significantly uncomfortable enough, irrespective of how much time, if any, they have left from a global standpoint– feedback dynamics of climate-change; financial and ecological collapse; peak oil, and so on. This is perhaps unless, and that’s a big unless, humans somehow smarten up, mature and act very quickly, and a new ‘ecointelligent’ or ‘extraintelligent’ way-of-life is developed that is more directly competitive against the increasingly-crowded and putrid petri-dish of the status-quo. Insofar as we may have a sense of the fund”>amental problem– the paradox of the human– it would then also help to describe one of its fundamental problematic manifestations; this ‘status-quo’…” ~ Caelan MacIntyre, from the manifesto, ‘Introducing Permaea‘, rough draft

  10. Specializations, such as nurse, engineer, scientist, teacher, doctor, lawyer, etc., are all ‘monocultures‘.

    Really?!

    So?! Was this lady a monoculture?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tprlQMClSYQ&t=671s
    Maryam Mirzakhani, Dynamics Moduli Spaces of Curves I
    Harvard Math

    Can you even follow her thinking? Bet you can’t because you are one of the most shallow thinkers that I have ever had the misfortune to come across! You are stuck in some sort of cult like dark hole.

    Is her published research false?

  11. Extinction and Overspecialization: The Dark Side of Human Innovation

    “Science and technology are among the principal characteristics of the human adaptive trait we call innovation. Our goal in this report is to provide the logic and justification for reconceptualizing innovation as a case of too much specialization rather than ‘general-purpose’ adaptation. General-purpose/domain-general traits are assumed by many to be preferentially selected-for because they offer a species the flexibility to switch between available solutions when environmental challenges occur. Traditionally, technology falls under the guise of domain-general traits manifest in culturally universal ways, yet in view of its impact on the environment we argue it meets the criteria for overspecialization. Specialization is evolution’s answer to fine-tuning a species to its niche, but it comes with a high risk should the narrowly defined niche change in substantive ways. Without flexibility, the lag time needed to adapt through random mutations is too long and collapse follows. The authors briefly cover the three basic classes of extinction, and then present three assertions why human innovation should be reconceptualized as too much specialization. This position turns on the notion that technology, consumption patterns, and overpopulation together are beginning to compromise the integrity of the global ecosystem. The natural history of technology reveals a monotonic function suggesting that humans have never voluntarily given up their investments in technology. While some new technologies are being designed with the hope of reducing environmental impacts, there is no hard evidence to suggest that enough can be done to reduce the demand side, nor help to reduce the population growth rate before the global ecosystem is compromised. If the present culture of technology endangers the environment much longer, there may be too few alternatives than nature’s punishment for monopoly.”

    See also, Monocultured Man—Specialization Leads to Fragility.

    1. Your particular mode of thinking is the epitome of fragility! Science is almost by definition. antifragile.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NXaafTpVjM
      [FULL VERSION] Nassim Nicholas Taleb explains Antifragile
      Published on Nov 30, 2012
      What is antifragility? The bestselling author of The Black Swan explains the concept of his new book, Antifragile, and how we can thrive in a world that is unpredictable, chaotic and full of shocks.

  12. Continuing the discussion about TV services from the last off-topic thread here’s the latest news on Netflix. The Stock absolutely surged because they managed to add over 5 million subscribers in the last report. It’s completely amazing because literally almost everyone with high speed internet in the US these days already has a Netflix account or knows someone they can borrow a log in from. Because of that most of Netflix’s subscriber growth has to come from international versions. Now when you think about all the people around the world who don’t have high speed internet yet but probably will within the next decade, the growth Netflix could be seeing here is just unbelievable. This is all to say even if some here have chosen not to believe me, the future of TV is clearly in OTT services like Netflix instead of the traditional model my parents and grandparents had to put up with.

    Netflix adds 5.2 million subscribers, crushing estimates — stock soars more than 10%
    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/17/netflix-earnings-q2-2017.html

  13. Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder
    by Nassim Nicholas Taleb

    “Now, second, consider textile technologies… These major developments in textile technology, as well as those of Wyatt and Paul (spinning frame, 1758), Arkwright (water frame, 1769), presaged the
    Industrial Revolution, yet they owed nothing to science…

    Much of all of this is a religious belief in the unconditional power of organized science, one that has replaced unconditional religious belief in organized religion…

    Bent Flyvbjerg… showed in his Black Swan management idea that the bulk of cost overruns by corporations are simply attributable to large technology projects—implying that that’s what we need to focus on… As they say in the mafia, just work on removing the pebble in your shoe…

    Antifragility implies—contrary to initial instinct—that the old is superior to the new, and much more than you think. No matter how something looks to your intellectual machinery, or how well or poorly it narrates, time will know more about its fragilities and break it when necessary…

    At the restaurant, I will be using silverware, a Mesopotamian technology, which qualifies as a ‘killer application’ given what it allows me to do to the leg of lamb, such as tear it apart while sparing my fingers from burns. I will be drinking wine, a liquid that has been in use for at least six millennia. The wine will be poured into glasses, an innovation claimed by my Lebanese compatriots to come from their Phoenician ancestors…

    Technothinkers tend to have an ‘engineering mind’—to put it less politely, they have autistic tendencies… And they typically share an absence of literary culture. This absence of literary culture is actually a marker of future blindness because it is usually accompanied by a denigration of history, a byproduct of unconditional neomania. Outside of the niche and isolated genre of science fiction, literature is about the past. We do not learn physics or biology from medieval textbooks, but we still read Homer, Plato, or the very modern Shakespeare. We cannot talk about sculpture without knowledge of the works of Phidias, Michelangelo, or the great Canova. These are in the past, not in the future. Just by setting foot into a museum, the aesthetically minded person is connecting with the elders…

    …technology can cancel the effect of bad technologies, by self-subtraction… Even now, we are using technology to reverse technology… The shoe industry, after spending decades ‘engineering’ the perfect walking and running shoe, with all manner of ‘support’ mechanisms and material for cushioning, is now selling us shoes that replicate being barefoot… And the great use of the tablet computer… is that it allows us to return to Babylonian and Phoenician roots of writing and take notes on a tablet (which is how it started)… My dream would be to someday write everything longhand, as almost every writer did before modernity.

    So it may be a natural property of technology to only want to be displaced by itself.

    Next let me show how the future is mostly in the past…

    Now, what is fragile? The large, optimized, overreliant on technology, overreliant on the so-called scientific method instead of age-tested heuristics…”

  14. This one is for my good friend and helper HB. I hope he’s only taking a vacation or rest break, and will continue to post here. Not hearing a whole lot from him in recent days.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/18/hillary-clinton-sided-with-russia-on-sanctions-as-bill-made-500g-on-moscow-speech.html

    Don’t worry too much about the Faux News source, this will be all over the net and maybe even the front pages of a few papers, and it will certainly make the back pages of the major nationally read papers such as the NYT, WP, LA Times, etc.

    “If you want to talk about having relationships with Russia, I’d look no further than the Clintons,” Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a briefing last week. “Bill Clinton was paid half a million dollars to give a speech to a Russian bank, personally thanked by President Putin.”

    THIS Trump associate is NOT a Sanders associated with the Bernie Sanders political camp.

    The former president indeed had received a personal call from then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin expressing his appreciation for the speech. According to Mrs. Clinton’s ethics disclosure form filed while she was secretary of State, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 by the Russia-based finance company Renaissance Capital for his June 29, 2010, speech in Moscow to its employees and guests attending the company’s annual conference.

    According to a memo from Clinton’s presidential campaign team later published by WikiLeaks, however, the Clinton campaign was able to stop the presses.

    “With the help of the research team, we killed a Bloomberg story trying to link HRC’s opposition to the Magnitsky bill a $500,000 speech that WJC gave in Moscow,” Jesse Lehrich, on the Rapid Response Communications team for Hillary For America, boasted on May 21, 2015.

    HRC was and remains ethically unqualified to be president, or to hold any other high office, for that matter, and anybody other than a hard core D partisan who knows doo doo about her long term record knows this to be true.

    Of course Trump is an old he coon of a fraud and thief and all around low life, and makes HRC look like an amateur, a girl scout on her first adventure with a naughty boy, in a manner of speaking, and I ALWAYS said Trump would be worse, unless maybe I forgot once or twice, and I did not expect Trump to win, I only thought he had an outside long shot.

    I’m STILL WAITING for ANY person with the reputation of knowing the abc’s of elementary probability theory to provide any explanation for Cattle Gate, OTHER than simple fraud involving her broker, and maybe inside info provided to her by powerful people high up in Arkansas business circles- As reported by the NYT, etc, at the time.

    I don’t pretend to believe lies, or ignore the truth to protect any politician for partisan purposes.

    I will be on the phone and on the net and providing rides on election day, etc, to support the Sanders wing of the D party.

    1. OldMacDonald aka KGB Trumpster continues his ignorance,

      “Trump White House officials now are trying to draw attention to that speech and the Clintons’ ties to Russia in a bid to counter criticism over Trump Jr.’s now-infamous meeting.

      “If you want to talk about having relationships with Russia, I’d look no further than the Clintons,” Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders””

      *******
      “to support the Sanders wing of the D party.”

      Hey idiot, Sanders is an Independent. Your divide and conquer strategy is just more proof of your Republican roots and your Russian Trump support.

      Get over it, Sanders and HRC are the past. Sanders got his ass kicked by HRC. Pull your nose out of your FoxNews Hannity Russian Republican cocaine.

      1. Sanders got his ass kicked by HRC.

        Actually, by the DNC’s dirty tricks.
        He would be President currently, if the corporate whores of the DNC would of realized the momentum they had going.
        But, they would rather have Trump, who is closer to their economic interests, than Sanders who could of possibly attempted to stop the pigs at the trough.

        But you are right HB, we got what we deserved, so lets move on.

        My only fear is eventually, one of theses incompetent dumb rich white guys, says “get me Rumsfeld on the phone”.
        Theses neocon thugs know what levers to pull, and they know where they are located.

    1. “It’s easier to pretend to deal with climate change…”

      Yes it is! Especially since we now have a large anti science contingent leading our country. Trump, Bannon, Betsy DeVoss, Mike Pence, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt, Ben Carlson, all are fundamentalist Christians and Creationists! All sucking at the teats of the Koch brothers.

      A somewhat oldie but goodie:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs

      “I’m not a cynic. I’m a hypocrite, It’s different, hypocrites believe in something…”
      Creation Science 101 by Roy Zimmerman

      1. Video was good for a laugh Fred. I liked the part about the Norse mythology and the Karma wheel.

        But the point was that even the ones who seem to be acting to stop global warming are mostly pandering and doing little that is effective. Monbiot thinks the only true way that fossil fuel will not be used is to keep it in the ground, reduction through efficiency and new tech will not work unless it is not allowed above ground.
        The laws don’t keep it in the ground, they just might throttle some use of it and make a scam tax system. We know someone will use it if we don’t.

        1. Monbiot thinks the only true way that fossil fuel will not be used is to keep it in the ground, reduction through efficiency and new tech will not work unless it is not allowed above ground.

          I couldn’t agree more! So how do we make it universally unpalatable to to allow any fossil fuels above ground? maybe we could take a page from the fight against cigarette smoking
          .

            1. Attention Humans: Changing to renewable energy now may prevent loss of your cable TV, cell phone and internet connections.

              (Have to threaten them with loss of something meaningful in their lives)

          2. To be fair, it’s the poor design of American cities, not the cars themselves, that cause obesity.

            1. And here I thought it was the cheap starches, sugars and sitting in a chair all day that caused obesity.
              It’s architecture and city planning, who would have thought. Probably mass transit too.

            2. If you have to drive a car from your house to buy a bottle of milk, your city is poorly designed. If there are no crosswalks or sidewalks where you live, you probably don’t get enough exercise.

              If your kids drive instead of riding a bike or walking to high school, they are probably overweight.

            3. Ah, the good ole days when there was a tiny store within a block or two. Those days are gone, we have zoning regs that prevent the village within a town scene. Stores are centralized in business areas now.

              I have no crosswalks or sidewalks, walk about eight miles a day on average. Depends more on the person than the car or the local design.

              As far as exercise goes, it’s overated as a fat burner. Thirty two miles of walking per pound of fat. Better to eat right and not have the fat in the first place. Starches and sugars build up the plaque in your arteries anyway, no matter how much you exercise. It’s a rate problem.

            4. Walking doesn’t burn fat, but is makes you stronger and more energetic. You may walk a lot without sidewalks, but it isn’t a good policy recommendation. And the days of corner stores are not gone. I walk to the store quite often. The zoning laws can be fixed.

            5. It is true that cities are poorly organized. in almost all medium and large cities in the US bicycling is a life-threatening event. and things are farther apart than they would otherwise need to be because there needs to be room for roadways and parking.

            6. Obesity is generally caused by eating too much and moving too little. If you consume high amounts of energy, particularly fat and sugars, but don’t burn off the energy through exercise and physical activity, much of the surplus energy will be stored by the body as fat.

              People living in the rural United States are more likely to be obese than those living in cities, a new study says.
              https://www.livescience.com/36654-obesity-rates-rural-areas-cities.html
              analyses of population-based, longitudinal data show that low intelligence from birth causes obesity
              https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/19/obesity-and-intelligence/
              Have you ever seen a pic of the folks at a Trump rally?

            7. MY wife grew up in rural Germany, and she road her bike about 5 miles to high school. Rural Americans are fat partly because rural America is as poorly designed as urban America.

    2. There was another good youtube suggestion next to that one of Monbiot:

      “Even Climate Scientists Are Now Revealing Their Fears For The Future”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eugO8yPVz4w

      From four Australian climate scientist (one, Prof Griggs, is a leading name in the field) who describe their personal fears for their families in the future and what their fallback plans are (mostly seem to be to get off of mainland Australia and as far North or South as possible, to Tasmania, New Zealand and UK). Also noticeable that three of them explicitly state that things are significantly worse than are being described in the current papers getting released which are cushioned with normal scientific conservatism.

      1. This is a pretty good paper from Griggs describing the starins of working on IPCC reports (in case there are still prats who think it’s all a big conspiracy for climate scientists to have the good life at the expense of the rest of us):

        https://www.nature.com/news/climate-policy-streamline-ipcc-reports-1.14990

        IPCC work can ruin lives, as a former lead author told me when I was head of an IPCC Technical Support Unit (TSU) working on the Third Assessment Report1. Over three years, he had devoted months of his own time to his chapter, because his university would not reduce his workload. He had haggled over details with other authors, responded to hundreds of reviewers’ comments (twice) and defended the account against distortion by governments. When the report came out he was attacked by deniers and the media, causing him distress. His marriage nearly ended. But when I asked him if he would work on the next report, he said: “Of course I will do it again, it is the most important thing I have ever done.”

      2. “three of them explicitly state that things are significantly worse than are being described in the current papers getting released which are cushioned with normal scientific conservatism”

        This is my thought for some time along with opinions being watered down to please their politicians. Those studying these matters need to be more frank and stop talking in probabilities and take the “This is what is happening” rather than “well, we think that it is likely there is a x% chance”. Unfortunately trying to give scientific statements to those who do not understand leaves people with an impression of uncertainty where there is none.

        NAOM

  17. It looks like we’ve moved from global sea ice peaking in November to it being early July, possibly June in the future. And the peak is moving down quickly. Has anybody seen papers calculating the effect of reduced albedo in the Antarctic on the warming trend? I haven’t but presumably it must be of similar magnitude to the Arctic as the loss is similar (actually higher if counted against recent years’ higher numbers, rather than an average).

    1. There’s not any warming trend in the Antarctic, from the perspective of the world of credible science, that is. In 2014, in fact, there was a record amount of sea ice around Antarctica. Closer to home, the Great Lakes inexplicably had record ice cover that year also. There were only 3 completely ice free months observed on Lake Superior.

      2. You understand that that chart is just a record of ice observations, with no modifications, do you? There is no real science in that chart unless you count being able to use Excel. It isn’t temperature and any impact from ice lake volumes is minor compared to sea ice. All the spurious interpretation and biased science is coming from you. The increase in Antarctic sea ice before last year, caused by changes in wind and precipitation not by warming, is included (actual scientists understand the complexity of these things better than you I think). So you have added nothing but the usual tedious crap to the argument.

      5. Someones got to be aping the deniers because nobody can be that stupid. It beggars belief.

        1. If you think that, you should come have a chat with my 46-year-old redneck neighbor who dropped out of school when he was 16. You’d probably change your opinion pretty quickly.

          One example of his sort of wisdom — he doesn’t believe that any kind of smoke can possibly be harmful in any way because fire is a natural process. He doesn’t care what the science might say because scientists have educations, and, in his view, anyone with an education is a liar out to get him and take something away from him. There’s no need to try and sway his beliefs with publications, either, since he can’t read beyond an elementary school level. He has to have his girlfriend read to him anything he finds too complicated.

          1. Really? And you think someone who fits the description of your neighbor would post something on this site? I’d say the chances of that are pretty slim. Which leads us to a conclusion of Poe or Troll. Occam’s razor usually wins!

            1. No, I don’t, but my main point was responding to the “nobody can be that stupid” statement.

            3. On the other hand Republicans might be stupider than your neighbor…Unfortunately this Moron with a capital ‘M’ is none other than the Chair of the House Committee on Science! WTF!!!

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m68aKu3w99I
              Republican Congressman HILARIOUSLY Asks NASA Scientist About an Ancient Martian Civilization

              Can someone please stop the planet? I’d really like to get off now!

            4. O tempora o mores!
              Imagine how dumb you gotta be to vote for that guy?!

        2. It doesn’t matter if the troll is credible or not. It’s enough to derail the conversation.

    2. Meanwhile,

      METHANE SEEPS OUT AS ARCTIC PERMAFROST STARTS TO RESEMBLE SWISS CHEESE

      “Global warming may be unleashing new sources of heat-trapping methane from layers of oil and gas that have been buried deep beneath Arctic permafrost for millennia. As the Earth’s frozen crust thaws, some of that gas appears to be finding new paths to the surface through permafrost that’s starting to resemble Swiss cheese in some areas, scientists said.”

      “This is another methane source that has not been included so much in the models,” said the study’s lead author, Katrin Kohnert, a climate scientist at the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences in Potsdam, Germany. “If, in other regions, the permafrost becomes discontinuous, more areas will contribute geologic methane,” she said.

      https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18072017/arctic-permafrost-melting-methane-emissions-geologic-sources-study

        1. Just what the oil industry needs: more oil on the market or at least the suggestion for more oil. Prices be damned.

  20. Although there is a lot of discussion about Antarctica and it’s glaciers, most people do not know what it really looks like. Enjoy the maps and animations. Unlike the Arctic, there is a lot of topography going on down there.
    Antarctic Bedrock
    https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4060

  23. MORE THAN 8. 3 BILLION TONS OF PLASTICS MADE: MOST HAS NOW BEEN DISCARDED

    “The researchers found that by 2015, humans had generated 8.3 billion metric tons of plastics, 6.3 billion tons of which had already become waste. Of that waste total, only 9 percent was recycled, 12 percent was incinerated and 79 percent accumulated in landfills or the natural environment…Global production of plastics increased from 2 million metric tons in 1950 to over 400 million metric tons in 2015, according to the study, outgrowing most other human-made materials. Notable exceptions are materials that are used extensively in the construction sector, such as steel and cement…And the pace of plastic production shows no signs of slowing. Of the total amount of plastics produced from 1950 to 2015, roughly half was produced in just the last 13 years.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170719140939.htm

    1. THE SHOCKING IMPACTS OF PLASTIC POLLUTION IN OUR OCEANS

      “Since plastic production began in the 1950s, plastic debris has been accumulating in our marine environment. In one week, from bottled water alone, the US produces enough discarded bottles to circle the planet five times. Such statistics shock and overwhelm; that this represents the waste from just one product, from only five per cent of the world’s population!”

      https://eia-international.org/the-shocking-impacts-of-plastic-pollution-in-our-oceans

      1. And from the very people that invent and make plastics.
        “In the first study to look at what happens over the years to the billions of pounds of plastic waste floating in the world’s oceans, scientists are reporting that plastics — reputed to be virtually indestructible — decompose with surprising speed and release potentially toxic substances into the water.”
        https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2009/august/plastics-in-oceans-decompose-release-hazardous-chemicals-surprising-new-study-says.html

        Wonder what the endocrine disruptors from plastics are doing to ocean life.

        1. “endocrine disruptors from plastics” That’s too depressing to contemplate. Let’s move on to whales and dolphins snared in discarded (plastic) fishing nets. You know, (relatively) happy thoughts.

          1. On a lighter note, since we have produced enough plastic to cover all of Argentina ankle deep, I see no problem in our ability to produce enough solar PV to power the world.

  24. Let’s compare energy/mass.
    A solar panel weighs about 40 pounds and across it’s 30 year (or more) lifespan will produce 18.7 megawatt-hours of useful power. That is 63 billion BTU equivalent.
    40 pounds of coal will produce about 400,000 BTU but since it is only 30 percent efficient, will produce only 35 kWh.
    40 pounds of gasoline will produce 666,000 BTU and at 20 percent efficiency will produce 39 kWh of useful energy.

    So a 40 pound solar panel is equivalent to 534 pounds of coal and 479 pounds of gasoline. To produce that 479 pounds of gasoline took about 770 pounds of crude oil.
    At a better than 10 to one power to mass ratio and no pollution output, we have a winner.

    1. LOL! Weren’t you the guy who chastised me the other day for providing too many facts ?

      1. I thought that was for those other guys, you know, the conservatives.
        Here is the dumbed down version.
        I got a great deal for you. This skinny little plate, pretty cheap to buy, will get rid of all that messy coal and smelly gasoline for you. It’s a great deal, nothing better. Clean, lean and mean. Works great all day, real quiet, real light.
        ########
        When you think about the amount of material that does not have to be mined, pumped or transported it’s fantastic. It’s a 90 percent savings plus.
        ########
        Now on to the other end.
        The Chevy Bolt is in apparent overproduction and the production line is shut down due to surplus stock. GM is also cutting back production of it’s ICE’s due to overproduction. Maybe people are just not interested in cars as much or there are too many already.
        Way back in the Bolt owner’s manual you will find:
        “Like all batteries, the amount of energy that the high voltage “propulsion” battery can store will decrease with time and miles driven.

        Depending on use, the battery may degrade as little as 10 percent to as much as 40 percent of capacity over the warranty period.”

        Now 10 percent loss in 8 years is not too bad, but 40 percent loss would be.
        If we have to replace the battery at 100,000 miles or even 125,000 miles, it will probably cost as much as the car is worth at that time. Although the upgrade might take you twice as far. 🙂
        So let’s tilt a glass to each and every EV owner. They are the brave frontiersmen of the new tech, putting their money on the line and doing real time tests for all the rest. Brave men and women taking chances on somewhat unproven technology. Hope it works out for them.

        http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1107751_2017-chevy-bolt-ev-10-to-40-percent-battery-capacity-loss-possible-but-unlikely
        #########
        Join the Tesla spotting club. Be the first in your area to see a Tesla Model 3.
        They say it has large back seat area. I guess they never had an Impala from the 60’s.
        Still looks like it won’t have a great view to the rear, hope it’s got back-up cameras. Strange looking side window shape too.
        #########
        All this high tech is nice but what we really need is a rear fired Taser to stop those stupid people that walk right behind your car while you back out of a parking space.
        For the more passive driver maybe just paint ball them instead. Now that would be a great autonomous addition to all cars. Might even train a few not to do that.

        1. I have already spotted a Tesla model 3. I see quite a few model S and their SUV versions as well.

        2. Taser – naahh. You’d have to get out and drag them out the way. Might damage your back trying to haul a 500lb land whale.

          NAOM

        3. Yes, I saw a model 3 also.

          BTW, actual Tesla owners are reporting very little battery life loss after 100,000 miles – it looks like they should last 500,000 miles or more. Of course, the Bolt might not be as good -we’ll see.

          Batteries are rated by cycle life, so cars with longer range will last for more total miles. 500 cycles * 240 miles per cycle is 120,000 miles which should be the minimum I’d expect for a Bolt under harsh operating conditions.

          1. I see Tesla 3 and S every day. Park next to them at the trailhead and grocery store. I never see them at the gas station, except for air.
            I know a couple who have 2 T S in their driveway charging on solar in the evenings. If you didn’t see their cars you would never know they were wealthy. Came from humble roots, and still are.

            1. Hickory, are you sure about the Model 3 part?

              Production of the Model 3 only began one week ago, and none have been released to the public yet. Next Friday the first 30 production cars are slated to be delivered to a very select group of first owners.

              I’m skeptical that pre-production models are spending any time at trailheads and grocery stores.

            3. The one I saw was pre-production, saw it about a month ago in San Francisco. I see model S and X’s everyday.

            4. Really looking forward to a Model 3 test drive. My brother has a deposit down, but I’m not sure if he’s going to go through with it. He’ll likely wait for the Model Y. Wish some of them would come with free lifetime supercharging like some kind of golden ticket.

              I’ve driven a Model S, and it was definitely inspiring, but it’s just too big (and costly) for me, and I actually thought the Fiat 500e was more fun to drive.

        4. The GM Orion plant builds both the Chevy Sonic and the Chevy Bolt on the same final assembly line. They were building a 2:1 ratio of Sonic:Bolt, but fewer people want an el cheapo econo-box when gas is $2 a gallon. So Sonics are in over supply, and they are re-vamping the plant to build 1:1 Sonic:Bolt

          http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1111581_chevy-bolt-ev-plant-shutdown-extended-due-to-slow-sonic-sales

          Sonic sales down 37 percent for the year to date –
          https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-generalmotors-production-idUSKBN1A227I

          Older story from Nov. 2016 with pictures one can see Bolts and Sonics on the same line:
          http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-bolt-idUSKBN1300PM

  25. Porsche is spending $1.16 billion to overhaul its Stuttgart plant in order to introduce the Mission E in 2019, Reuters reported.

    – It can also drive 310 miles, or 500 kilometers, on a single charge, according to Porsche.
    – It will also support inductive charging so the driver can park it over a base plate to power back up.
    – Porsche tucked its charging port into the front fender, which is designed for an 800-volt charger made by Porsche. The automaker says its charger will allow it to recharge to 80% in just 15 minutes.

    Porsche is owned by Volkswagen, which plans to introduce 30 electric or hybrid vehicles by 2025 — an aim made in response to the Volkswagen emissions-cheating scandal.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/porsche-mission-e-electric-2017-7/#the-porsche-mission-e-was-given-the-green-light-for-production-in-2015-here-you-see-the-mission-e-concept-that-porsche-unveiled-at-the-2015-frankfurt-motor-show-which-gives-us-a-hint-of-what-will-come-in-2020-1

    This is VW’s first car in a major move to electrics. I expect the 15 minute charging to be standard.

  26. The New York Times, Reuters and The Wall Street Journal all have stories leaked to them on this topic- The House of Saud airing it’s dirty laundry. To play power broker and peacemaker King Abdulaziz took many wives from the most powerful clans. This has resulted in factionalism within the House of Saud. Sudairi clan, Faisal family, Bin Sultans and Abdullah faction are all in conflict over the diminishing resources of the crown. Looks like Sudairi clan is in the lead and taking the crown to the first of the third generation princes.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-mohammed-bin-nayef-mohammed-bin-salman.html

      1. lol go back to watching the boob-tube little johnny. I think Duck Dynasty reruns are on.

        1. How about thinking of the saying, if you don’t have anything nice to say then don’t say anything at all. And if you have such a big a problem with somebody here then just use the X to ignore, like I’m going to.

          1. Sorry snowflake. I’m not into censorship. Next time I’ll give you a trigger warning.

      2. I care and so should most people, it’s one of the most important geopolitical stories at the moment. There was a piece in the Times yesterday indicating that the old crown prince was addicted to pain killers, following the “bomb in rectum” assassination attempt and couldn’t function, and is now under house arrest. The west, and US in particular, are losing influence and information sources, and MbS looks like he might be the biggest narcissist/psychopath of them all at the moment, despite stiff opposition from Putin, Erdogan and (maybe) Trump, though he is so incompetent he maybe is only second devision.

  27. AT MIDWAY POINT, 2017 IS 2ND-HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/midway-point-2017-2nd-hottest-year-21625

    At the halfway point of the year, 2017 remains the second-hottest year to date …
    “Personally, I wasn’t expecting it to be as warm as it has been,” Ahira Sanchez-Lugo, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate scientist, said in an email. “After the decline of the strong El Niño I was expecting the values to drop a bit and rank among the top five warmest years. This year has been extremely remarkable.”
    …
    The hotspots around the world for June included central Asia and western and central Europe. A searing heat wave in western Europe that helped fuel deadly wildfires in Portugal was made up to 10 times more likely because of Earth’s rising temperature, according to a recent study done in partnership with Climate Central.
    …
    While there were several spots that have seen record-warm years so far — including Mexico, parts of eastern Russia and China and western Europe — the heat is fairly broadly spread around the globe.
    …
    In fact, years with La Niñas (which tend to cool global temperatures) are today warmer than El Niño years several decades ago. 2017 actually started out with a La Niña, albeit a weak one, but it is 0.38°F (0.21°C) ahead of 1998, Sanchez-Lugo, said.

    1. On the other hand countless fellow humanmade climate change supporters have been coming out recently in proclamation of the dishonesty of this global temperature data. The main thing to keep in mind is how these were once very rabid supporters of climate change theory just like yourself. What got minds to change the most is how NOAA runs about 35,000 land temperature measurement sites around the world, yet uses just 7,364 of them in data reporting. That’s just little over 20% of all the NOAA stations. Naturally which stations are determined to have the “good” measurements involves very specific cherry picking so that only the stations with temperatures aligning most closely to the theory are used for analysis. The result is the average NOAA station is used to report temperature over an area of roughly 8000 square mi. Now you tell me, how is there any way these reported temperatures can be reliable? Furthermore I haven’t even come close to discussing the fiasco of historical temperature records being “re-calibrated” to death so that past years end up as colder than the original reports.

      1. You’re an idiot, grasping at straws to maintain your world view, as the alternative is too scary for you. Please don’t bother yourself further, it’s all worthless crap that you are spewing..

        1. No, George, MG, is a either just a bot, a stupid fucking troll or a paid Koch brother supporter, whose job it is to post shit like this with the sole purpose of pissing people like you and me off… These people have very specific agendas and are not interested in any kind of meaningful intelligent discussion. They are simply agent provacateurs and most of the ones who are paid are not really stupid, they are the lowest level of scum bag as are their handlers and masters!
          It almost makes me wish I believed in hell because then I could at least imagine the eternal suffering they would experience. Make no mistake about it, these people are consciously and deliberately exacerbating all of humanities problems.

      3. “On the other hand countless fellow humanmade climate change supporters have been coming out recently in proclamation of the dishonesty of this global temperature dat. The main thing to keep in mind is how these were once very rabid supporters of climate change theory just like yourself.”- Max

        Countless eh? Ok, name 10. Did you finish highschool Max?

    2. George and Fred,

      I understand your frustration with information that you deem to be fraudulent posted by folks that you consider to be ignorant or dishonest, but responses that only potentially reinforce a perception of intolerance, unwillingness to engage, ad hominem, et cetera aren’t particularly helpful in winning ‘public’ opinion.

      Presumably, there are no false claims made by ‘denialists’ that have not been addressed and refuted by experts working in the field. The antidote to ‘fake news’ is real news, but it may be difficult for the average lay person to find legitimate primary source information.

      If the standard response to false information was consistently a simple link to the relevant papers and best repositories of current legitimate knowledge that address the topic, I tend to think that even those without the technical competence to understand the material (such as myself) would still possibly be able to discern the difference between it and garbage.

      Responses should be geared towards the honest reader, not the bot, or agent, or troll.

      1. If you are the exception to rule, my apologies. Most of us here are tired of posting links to peer reviewed science as a response to posts such as yours. You can blame the 95% of idiotiotic trolls for that!

        1. I understand the tired of it part. Don’t really know what you mean by “posts such as yours”.

          1. Don’t really know what you mean by “posts such as yours”.

            My bad! I meant posts such as Max Gervis’ My main point being that I have a pretty good BS meter and have lost all patience with his ilk!

      2. Bob Nickson – I appreciate your comment but:

        1) Why do you think this site’s concern should be winning public opinion? Maybe it should be, but I don’t think it’s a given., I come here (hopefully) to be a little educated and a little entertained not to read some condescending bullshit from some prat who doesn’t even begin to know what he doesn’t know.

        2) Why do you think there are false claims that have no been refuted by experts – I have never seen one, in fact I have never seen one that is not refuted by one site: SkepticalScience, which is pretty easy to find and extremely well presented; it has three levels of argument: easy, intermediate, advanced – anyone can follow (if they choose – but all deniers choose not to)?

        3) Why do you think any sort of argument matters to deniers – they have already decided what the answer is and are looking for confirmation and/or like Fred says, they have an agenda that has nothing to do with with finding the truth, but only with propaganda?

        4) Why do you think I give a flying fuck either way other than not to have to read any more of this crap, and it appears collective and prolonged ad hominem abuse seems to work best for that?

        1. Thanks for the reply George, and by the way I enjoy your posts which I find to be thoughtful and informed.

          1) I don’t think that about the site, but I guess I do think that is the purpose of argument. Why respond if not to convince?

          2) I don’t think that, which is why I wrote: “presumably there are no false claims […] that have not been addressed.”
          You may know to go to skeptical science, but not every honestly interested reader may know where to go, which is why I’m advocating telling people where to go.

          3) I don’t think that it does, which is why I brought up the part about arguing towards the third party: that mythical creature The Sincere Seeker Of Truth.

          4) I don’t presume to know what you give a flying fuck about, other than the topics you choose to post on. I just brought up my perception of the optics. Does the ad hominem abuse work? Or is it that the troll was successful in obtaining it.

          I didn’t have a strong expectation that what I had to say would be well received, especially by Fred, who I happen to like for some reason and mostly agree with.

          There’s reason to believe that everybody is already firmly planted in their tribal identities, or mindset, or whatever, and that no-one is susceptible to argument or persuasion of any kind no matter how it’s presented, but yet we persist in arguing. Go figure humans.

          I also come here to be a little informed and a little entertained, and of course for the optimism and the humor.

          1. I agree.

            The best response to trolls is a simple statement of reality (“this argument is entirely unrealistic – the reasons are clearly explained here”) with a link or two to the explanations. And maybe a paragraph or two from the explanations. This doesn’t have to take long:one could have a text file on on one’s computer with these answers, that you could copy and paste as needed.

            That clarifies reality for lurkers, and avoids the disruption that such trolls are often trying to create.

        2. Hi George and Bob.
          I am with George on this point: Peak Oil Barrel is not a bully pulpit.
          It is an opportunity to exchange views with people who are of good intention.

          People who come here without understanding the rules (cite your sources is at the root), or with the intention of flaunting the rules for political purposes, are a constant problem. I’ve sworn at them myself.

          I suspect that the swearing does shorten the discussion: being sworn at by someone with a strong reputation in the group, where reputation is only gained by having other members respond to you, sends a signal to the person being sworn at that they will not be accepted by the group. It is our version of Indiana Jones shooting the Arab swordsman in the Souk: ain’t nobody got time for that crap. It is a way that we posters can exclude outsiders in a time-efficient manner. It is stating the denial of membership (“I won’t talk to you because you are obviously a fucking moron”), as opposed to not engaging with them- a passive denial of membership which suggests that their opinion is not contested.

          The core question is “What is our purpose here?”

          We all have our own answers. I see us as an informal club talking about energy and climate and the end of the world. All of us know how to write a University-level paper and how to cite. We aren’t journalists or politicians or PR flacks or Social Media manipulators.

          I’m here to talk to the group (or, with the advent of the “ignore” button, with a subset of the group). We are tribal. We want stuff that appeals to our tribe: current news and carefully considered argument about our topics.

          The trolls are not here for that, and every word spent dealing with them takes away from group engagement.

          So fuck ’em.

          -Lloyd

      3. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to have an FAQ on trolls that one could simply post every time a troll appeared. Venting off a little steam isn’t the end of the world. Taking five minutes of your life and a ½ meter worth of scroll on the thread seems like a poor choice.

        I’ve seen some threads on some websites get totally consumed by trolls and bots to the point that one imagines MOST of the posters are just that. Zerohedge is a great example. The comments thread started bad, but at least there was a mix. Now, it’s utterly worthless. And the actual content of the site’s postings has also gone in that direction – as if pulled into the vortex by the trolls. It used to be mostly economic analysis with the occasional SHTFplan or whatever bat-shit crazy blog published that day, and the occasional well-reasoned blog-post/analysis (like Of Two Minds or Mish). Now it’s more like 15/80/5, with the 80% being the crazy.

        Trolls alone aren’t enough, they need a coordinated misinformation campaign of articles and public opinion players to bolster their bullshit. And we all know them, we see the articles almost every day: Shale oil will make US energy independent; Shale oil efficiency gains make it profitable even at sub-50; Peak demand; EVs cheaper and dominant by… 2040, 2030, 2025; Jury’s out on climate change.

        With the remaining places of honest and realistic discussion dwindling the hordes of trolls are searching hard for plunder. Maybe that’s why POB seems to have become a target recently.

        1. “Trolls alone aren’t enough, they need a coordinated misinformation campaign of articles and public opinion players to bolster their bullshit. And we all know them, we see the articles almost every day: Shale oil will make US energy independent; Shale oil efficiency gains make it profitable even at sub-50; Peak demand; EVs cheaper and dominant by… 2040, 2030, 2025; Jury’s out on climate change.

          Sorry but, I do not see how “EVs cheaper and dominant by… 2040, 2030, 2025” fits in with “Jury’s out on climate change”. I say this as someone who frequently posts stuff on market developments on EVs, updates on the latest presentations by Tony Seba (on Youtube) and all round developments in the field of renewables, solar in particular.

          I also do some graphs based on the EIA’s Electric Power Monthly with a particular emphasis on the changes in the generation mix and the growing role of renewables. For the past two months These graphs have formed the basis for a lead post which Dennis and Ron have graciously allowed me the privilege of presenting.

          I have stated openly that if I can be considered as having an agenda, it is to advocate that measures be adopted that will contribute to the mitigation of the worst outcomes put forward by the 2005 Hirsch report on Peak Oil (PEAKING OF WORLD OIL PRODUCTION:
          IMPACTS, MITIGATION, & RISK MANAGEMENT          ). From page 59:

          Our results are congruent with the fundamentals of the problem:

          • Waiting until world oil production peaks before taking crash program action leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more than two decades.

          • Initiating a mitigation crash program 10 years before world oil peaking helps considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked.

          • Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking appears to offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

          The obvious conclusion from this analysis is that with adequate, timely mitigation,
          the costs of peaking can be minimized. If mitigation were to be too little, too late, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), which would translate to significant economic hardship, as discussed earlier.

          Call me a dreamer if you want but, I do not consider myself a troll. I post the stuff I post because I would like to think there are outcomes that are better than the worst outcomes put forward by the Peak Oil crowd, a crowd I consider myself a member of.

          Take my references to Seba as a example. When I first introduced him here, he was saying that cars with ICEs will disappear from the market for new cars by 2030. I have recently posted that in his most recent presentations (e.g. June 8, 2017) he has uped the ante and is now saying that the ICE will all but disappear by 2025. His rational for moving his target is that costs are falling faster than he projected in his 2014 book “Clean Disruption”. From the transcript of the video linked above:

          “24:40 – This is a cost curve. You know in 2014 I drew this cost curve based on what I knew about lithium-ion batteries and so on and what it says essentially is that, by twenty seventeen or eighteen the market would essentially launch several electric vehicles with 200-mile range at least because, that’s what I thought was minimum you need to go to the mainstream consumer for thirty five to forty thousand dollars unsubsidized. And that’s what I predicted. Even three years ago, what did folks tell me about that prediction? You’re insane! Right? Not going to happen. Guess what did happen? [snip]

          26:01 – The cost curve is even going further down and you’re going to have by 2022, 200-mile EV for $20,000. $20,000, 200 mile EVs, unsubsidized! So essentially what this says is that by 2025 or so, I mean even if I’m wrong by a couple years, by 2025 every thing that moves, road transportation, buses and tractors and you know trucks and cars, every vehicle is going to be electric.”

          The whole point of bringing Seba and his ideas to this discussion is that, things are happening fairly quickly that, are potentially very disruptive to the status quo and disruption is Seba’s area of expertise. I, for one, do not think that Seba’s projections are impossible, likely? Maybe not but, I like to imagine what will happen if the clean disruption happens, even if not as fast as Seba projects. Does that make me a troll, a dreamer or a gullible fool? Only time will tell.

          1. The whole point of bringing Seba and his ideas to this discussion is that, things are happening fairly quickly that, are potentially very disruptive to the status quo and disruption is Seba’s area of expertise. I, for one, do not think that Seba’s projections are impossible, likely? Maybe not but, I like to imagine what will happen if the clean disruption happens, even if not as fast as Seba projects. Does that make me a troll, a dreamer or a gullible fool? Only time will tell.

            Tony Seba is not the only one who is an expert in technological disruption.

            Here’s an interesting site I discovered recently.
            http://www.raywills.net/rtwtechadopt.html

            The key challenge is that prediction is always difficult, but especially when it’s about the future.

            Prediction of future success is most likely prone to fail. But modelling success in motion using real metrics of diffusion is feasible and logical – as for forward projections in clean tech.

            There is a lot of data on past diffusions; appraisals by incumbents generally deny reality of impending change, and so minimise preparedness of both themselves and the markets they service. Again cleantech is an example, the upward trendline of renewables is undeniable, but the incumbent fossil fuel industry rejects the possibility of rapid change.

            Sound familiar?

    1. Nobody cares except maybe a few power hungry and vindictive Repubs.
      We got bigger fish to fry now.

          1. Any staff member at the state department for whom there is evidence of engaging in pay to play, influence peddling and classified information mishandling would likely be arrested and charged.
            I’m talking about the rule of law and American law. Not kangaroo courts. A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that ignores recognized standards of law or justice. The rule of law is the the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.
            I think I get where you’re coming from though- Trump is bad. Clinton opposed Trump. Clinton must therefore be good and can’t do bad, and if she did do bad then don’t worry about it and just let it slide cuz we’ve got bigger fish to fry. Whatever that means.
            I’d suggest that’s a very simplistic analysis you’ve got there. What other cases should the FBI disregard because of this bigger fish to fry argument? Do Jill Stein and Gary Johnson get to skate too if it’s found that they’ve been engaged in illegal behaviour? After all, they ran against Trump as well. Or is this just a Clinton thing?
            ‘Follow the money’ is dated. Now I suggest ‘follow the immunity’.

            1. Nope, you do not get where I am coming from. If you are so much for the rule of law, stop hanging Clinton before she is tried. Guilty until proven innocent?
              You can’t have it both ways.

              The rules for politicians have always been different than the rules for the public and government workers. Just as the rules for police and soldiers are different. Grow up.

            2. I’m not hanging Clinton. I’m posting a link to a story about a freedom of information request for emails pointing to her being involved in lay to play, influence peddling and mishandling of classified information. However I’m sure that distinction is lost on you. And she will never be tried.
              We’re either a nation of laws or we’re not.
              https://youtu.be/yL8rVbWniW4
              The rules are different for politicians? Ok then Fred. You know who else ‘the rules’ are different for Fred? Billionaires. So I guess you can shut up about the Koch Brothers eh?
              Are you prepared to accept different rules for Trump. It seems to me that given your dislike for him you are not. It seems to me that you feel the politicians that you prefer should be excempt from the rule of law, while the ones you dislike should not be. You have a very immature and unsophisticated view of politics and the rule of law. I suggest it’s you that needs to grow up. Or grow some skin.
              I say again; I think I get where you’re coming from though- Trump is bad. Clinton opposed Trump. Clinton must therefore be good and can’t do bad, and if she did do bad then don’t worry about it and just let it slide cuz we’ve got bigger fish to fry. Whatever that means.
              You Clinton fanatics are pathetic. I’m sure if Trump was accused of pay to play, influence peddling and mishandling classified info you’d be all over it calling for an investigation. Face it Fred, you’re a hypocrite. You support the rule of law when it supports the outcomes you prefer. And if a kangaroo court would result in the outcome you prefer you’d be ok with that too. Fucking brilliant man. You should teach at Harvard Law School.

            3. HUH?! What the fuck are you talking about?!

              First of all, I never once said anything to indicate I supported Clinton in any way shape or form or that I thought she should be above the law. Yes, I do despise Trump simply because he is a despicable loathsome POS, who has clearly demonstrated that he only cares about himself and his own self interests and he is corrupt to the core. Fortunately he is also dumber than a bag of rocks!

              Second, I am perfectly aware that the rules apply quite differently to those who have wealth and power, at least here in the USA!

              Third, given the recent indictments and convictions of powerful wealthy businessmen and politicians in Brazil I do upon rare occasion have momentary flashes of optimism that sometimes the rule of law can be made to prevail and justice served!

            4. He doesn’t even know who he is responding to, sad.
              I am tired of this rant from the Trump support team.

          1. I remember when the Clinton team was all like ‘yeah fuck you we don’t need you’ towards any D’s who didn’t support Clinton. Then she lost. Now they’re all like ‘yeah fuck you it’s all your fault we lost’. What a bunch of god damn morons. Clinton couldn’t campaign her way out of a wet paper bag. An empty podium with Trump written on it got better TV ratings than her talking. Rowdy Roddy Piper could’ve beaten her in the election.

      2. It would be tragic if people were left to the phlegmatic alternatives posed by the historically bypassed Social Democrats in Europe, the tiresome Clintons in the United States, and uninspiring elite-run reform movements in the Global South. Such political alternatives are no match for the counterrevolutionary movements that are on the march.

    1. It looks like a motor scooter/cycle, not a bicycle- the guy n the video isn’t even pedaling.

      1. Well, from their link, here’s the word from straight from the horse’s mouth:

        Despite its throwback looks, however, the V1 has some decidedly high-tech components hidden away in its frame. For instance, the bike is outfitted with a 5000-watt, brushless electric motor that is capable of achieving pedal-assisted speeds of up to 36 miles per hour. That drive system is powered by a 24 Ah lithium-ion battery, which gives it a range of up to 75 miles and a recharge time of under three hours.

        Though I have a hunch that most people won’t need to be pedaling it all that much… 😉

        1. Those kinds of vehicles are giving e-bikes a bad rap, and more and more bike trails are banning all e-assist bikes as a result.
          Modern life.

            1. AARP…and pushes for them

              Wouldn’t those be the E-Vheelchairs? 😉

  31. Arctic sea ice is second lowest for the day of the year as of July 21, 2017. 2011 is lowest for the date. Next few weeks of data will be interesting to see.
    https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop.ver1/data/graph/plot_extent_n_v2.csv
    Must be all the global cooling causing that ice to melt. sarc/
    As well so far, 2017 is looking to be second hottest year on record behind 2016, but ahead of the previously in second place 2015. Even with a weak La Niña in early 2017 we are at this point still warmer then the big El Niño year in 1998.

    1. That we are still this warm after a El Nino in 2016, is very scary.

      1. This is scarier! Meet the new Trump nominee for head of the USDA, science denier Sam Clovis, aka Jabba the Hutt.
        .

        1. The first basic law of human stupidity asserts without ambiguity that:

          Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

    2. When Greenland and Antarctica melt down it will chill the ocean to the point where temps will just be balmy. So they better hurry up and melt fast or else we are in for a hot ole time.
      Of course if they melt fast we lose a lot of land, cities, towns and beaches. Our marshes go away too and the nukes, refineries and chemical companies get a free wash into the ocean.
      As a fellow said to me “You just can’t win.” 🙁
      P.S. The skiing will be good in northern Europe when the AMOC stops.

    1. Yeah but the interesting story is not about current installed base but rather the exponential growth rate trends for future installed percentages.

        1. Ok, I take your point. Let’s go with the most conservative views offered by the IEA…

          https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/october/iea-raises-its-five-year-renewable-growth-forecast-as-2015-marks-record-year.html

          The latest edition of the IEA’s Medium-Term Renewable Market Report now sees renewables growing 13% more between 2015 and 2021 than it did in last year’s forecast, due mostly to stronger policy backing in the United States, China, India and Mexico. Over the forecast period, costs are expected to drop by a quarter in solar PV and 15 percent for onshore wind.

          Last year marked a turning point for renewables. Led by wind and solar, renewables represented more than half the new power capacity around the world, reaching a record 153 Gigawatt (GW), 15% more than the previous year. Most of these gains were driven by record-level wind additions of 66 GW and solar PV additions of 49 GW.

          About half a million solar panels were installed every day around the world last year. In China, which accounted for about half the wind additions and 40% of all renewable capacity increases, two wind turbines were installed every hour in 2015.

          “We are witnessing a transformation of global power markets led by renewables and, as is the case with other fields, the center of gravity for renewable growth is moving to emerging markets,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director.

          Or a sober assessment from SciAm

          https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clean-power-worldwide-has-doubled-in-10-years/

          Clean Power Worldwide Has Doubled in 10 Years
          Asia was the fastest-growing region, with a 13.1 percent increase in renewable energy capacity

          Renewable energy generation grew globally by 161 gigawatts in 2016, setting another annual record for capacity additions and pushing clean power capacity past 2,000 GW, according to newly released data from the International Renewable Energy Agency.
          That’s roughly double the amount of renewable energy that was flowing across the world’s power grids a decade ago, according to the Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates-based organization, and it reflects the unprecedented adoption of solar, wind, hydro and other emissions-free power by the world’s largest economies.

          http://www.raywills.net/rtwtechadopt.html

          Adopting new tech and clean tech – how quickly will (can) the world change?

          Our experience of markets in the last 30 years tell us what to expect when disruptive technologies hit, how quickly new successful technology rushes through the economy, washing the old way of doing things from memory. The adoption of smarter technologies – including cleantech, automation, robotics and 3D printing – in homes, enterprises, and every industry in every region and city, and connected through social media and smart devices including wearables, is changing the world and the way we interact with family, friends (and foes), and customers, and much faster than (almost) anyone imagined.

          Previous markets warn us about how quickly new disruptive technologies might arrive. New supply chains arise far more quickly than in the past. And now clients are demanding cleaner, cheaper, faster, smarter – and also more secure. But, curiously, most market forecasts for new technology largely assume business as usual – traditional usage patterns continuing without anticipating shifts as fast, or disruptive. So, how quickly will we respond, and change how we safely live and work in the cities we reside in? What does this mean for how we plan and regenerate infrastructure in regions and cities? What does this mean for future for safety and for quality of life and rapidly changing community expectations? What might safe, smart, liveable cities look like by 2040?

          Technology diffusion and technology disruption

          Technology diffusion is well understood – we’ve got countless examples – cars, TVs, BBQs, cell phones, wind turbines, cosmetics, iPods, solar PV, video records, DVD players, LED lights, iPads. And not just things but things within things – like ABS, and fuel injection and airbags in cars – they are all the same, and diffusion rates can be logically and rationally extrapolated. That’s how diffusion curves work, and that is the simple model, but not simplistic.
          .

          1. I’m hoping for the best.
            The technology is fascinating, for sure.

  33. Interesting viewing here about how the next stage of climate change may just be about to surprise some people. Perhaps the official climate scientists most of all.

    Lee & Adapt 2030 discuss The Grand Solar Minimum

    Mini Ice Age 2015-2035, Covers changes in our climate due to a new Grand Solar Minimum and how we need to adapt to survive a cooling planet. It is now clear with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Multi Decadal Oscillation (AMO) Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), and Solar Cycle 24 all declining, Earth’s climate will begin cooling significantly by mid-2017.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kub7PrWNZE

    2. Earth’s climate will begin cooling significantly by mid-2017

      Oh yeah, can’t wait, especially since we are right smack in the middle of 2017 and most of the planet is roasting! Let’s try Nick’s theory of providing a link to a reputable scientific source that says the opposite of what Frisky Bob says and see how that goes…

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/surprising-scientists-2017-could-be-among-hottest-on-record/

      Surprising Scientists, 2017 Could Be among Hottest on Record
      Global temperatures this year have been 1.64 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th-century average

      2. Well this sucks, New Fred is a lot less entertaining. I’ll give it less than a week. I’ll also bet this change screws up your whole day New Fred. You’ll be constipated by 6 pm.

        1. I’ll also bet this change screws up your whole day New Fred. You’ll be constipated by 6 pm.

          LOL! Are you suggesting I won’t give a shit?!

          New Fred

          1. When one has two personas, it makes talking to oneself so much more productive and meaningful.

      3. Fred,

        Global temperatures have been going down since February 2016. Since the first three months of 2017 were very warm, the 2017 annual average is almost certain to make it to the top 5 warmest. But given that temperatures are going down since El Niño ended, we should not get too worried about this record thing.

        Nobody knows when the decrease in global temperatures will end or at what level. Hopefully the cooling will stop before it gets too cold 😉

        This is CFSR (today’s release). The rest of the databases will pretty much agree with some differences.

        1. Nobody knows when the decrease in global temperatures will end or at what level. Hopefully the cooling will stop before it gets too cold ?

          Dang, here I was hoping it goes the other way, so I can repay the loans I took out for my new snow blower business in South Miami… I was in Miami back in the mid 70’s when we had some snow flurries come through but I’m counting on major blizzards like the ones I experienced when I lived in Buffalo NY.

          1. Major blizzards in Florida? Are you talking snowball earth? I bet that would wreck the orange crop big time.
            Quick Fred, get into the heating and insulation business. Selling winter clothing will be a big one too.

            1. I was going for a wreck diving tours over Miami, after the pollution and dead things dissipate from the storms.
              I led similar tours in Micronesia over sunken ships and planes from WWII.
              I guess with the coming ice age, I should abandon my plans?

        2. Actually, we were getting colder for the last 4000 years.
          Then we carbonized the atmosphere.
          Can you say hockey stick?
          I knew you could!

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#/media/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

          Now this is from
          NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
          so, being from actual climate scientist, rather than wing pawns, it must be discounted.

          Want to see the hockey stick data?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

        3. “the 2017 annual average is almost certain to make it to the top 5 warmest”- Javier

          Yeah, or the top two.

          At Midway Point, 2017 Is 2nd-Hottest Year on Record
          http://www.climatecentral.org/news/midway-point-2017-2nd-hottest-year-21625

          ” All in all it looks like 2015 will be the year of Peak Warmth for quite some time.” – Javier

          https://archive.is/F9a1N#selection-1995.0-2021.289.

          “So far it looks 2017 will be no close to record warm year and we will have more Arctic sea ice in September than ten years ago in 2007.” – Javier

          http://euanmearns.com/blowout-week-176/#comment-28996

          “I betcha next winter will see a larger than usual sea-ice growth. It tends to happen when the melting has been intense, like in 2013 after the 2012 melt.” – Javier

          https://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/arctic-alarmists-screaming/#comment-16796

          I’ve lost count of the fails. For a guy that claims to have such a firm grasp on climate science he sure gets a lot of shit wrong. It must be embarrassing.

          1. You count them as fails, I don’t:

            – The warmth peaked on February 2016. That’s close enough to 2015 for me.
            – September Arctic sea ice extent is still likely to be >2007. That means no melting in 10 years.

            Has anybody got it so close in peak oil?

            There’s no longer need to beat a dead horse. Climate alarmism is dying a slow death as the earth cools down after the big El Niño, and the Arctic refuses to melt. There is a total disconnect between what is happening and what is being reported. Now they call it fake news.

            As earth’s climate denies alarmism the reporting gets more absurd and the claims more unbelievable, like Hawking saying that earth could turn into a hothouse like Venus. How embarrassing.

            1. “Javier Ignored says:
              … Has anybody got it so close in peak oil?”

              Yes. Science does a pretty good job … otoh, in the case of Javier: not so much.

    3. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.

    4. Don’t believe everything you read Bob,

      Regarding solar activity, we are just going through a centennial minimum, very much like the Gleissberg minimum of 1879-1914 at worst, and that doesn’t even mean that we are going to have the temperatures of that time. The effect of a centennial minimum on global temperatures is quite small. A reduction of maybe 0.1-0.2°C. It should have a more intense regional effect on Eastern US, Western Europe, and Central Asia, but nothing too drastic. Some cold winters, hopefully with not too many people dying if energy prices to warm houses do not keep increasing.

      The belief by some people that a solar grand minimum is about to happen is erroneous and based on an incorrect interpretation of solar activity data. I expect solar activity will start increasing again at Solar Cycle 26.

    1. “The body of Christ gives me the shits”. No problem! Communion Diapers™ available for Celiacs in the church gift shop.

  35. According to this link, the UK is now getting five percent of the country’s electrical energy from wind, and is the world leader in offshore wind.

    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2017/07/contract-wins-and-acquisitions-further-growth-of-global-offshore-wind-industry.html?cmpid=enl_rew_windenergynews_2017-07-20

    It’s expensive, true, but it also means that the UK is freed of the need to import a substantial amount of natural gas or ( GASP! ) coal , or ELSE build some new ( DOUBLE GASP! ) nukes.

    But when the price of IMPORTED GAS eventually doubles or triples, or goes even higher, due to depletion, embargo, war, or some combination of these factors, the country’s wind farms will be recognized as BARGAIN investments.

    We need to put more emphasis on the balance of trade issue, and on the security issue, and the local tax collection issue, and the local employment issue, when we talk about renewable electricity, etc,
    and less on the climate, because those of us who are knowledgeable about climate are already on board, and will stay on board. The constant emphasis on climate is basically the same as PREACHING TO THE CHOIR.

    The SINNERS are those people out there who vote, but don’t know much science, if any, and aren’t going to take the time to learn any.

    But they can be won over, gradually, by emphasizing the OTHER positive benefits of wind and solar sourced electricity.

    Please try remember not to make fun of them , when explaining these other benefits, else you will not only fail to get their attention, you will actually drive them into BAU / Koch brothers camp.

    I point out to hard core right wingers, who are invariably in favor of powerful military establishments, that we will need a little less powerful Pentagon and MIC in proportion to the amount of energy we generate at home, rather than buying in the form of oil and gas from other countries.

    This leaves more money for actual soldiers, tanks, and planes, which pleases them, and the less we import, the less money goes to governments that are NOT our friends.

    This pleases them EVEN more, and taken all around , I am planting the seeds of subversion in their walled off rightwing intellectual gardens, and they are CULTIVATING these seeds THEMSELVES.

    AS Larry , Curly, and Moe used to say when they got one over on somebody, Yuk Yuk Yuk !!!!

  36. And about the COST or PRICE of renewable energy………. Hardly anybody ever bothers to point out that when we get ten percent of our electricity from the wind and sun, we REDUCE the necessary purchases of coal and gas by very close to that same ten percent.

    And when the sale of a commodity such as coal or gas falls off, everything else equal, the PRICE of that commodity, that coal and gas, also falls off. And it might fall off quite a lot MORE than ten percent, lol.

    In other words, whatever we spend subsidizing renewable electricity, and electrically powered cars as well, we may ALREADY be getting back , PLUS an additional savings, because coal and gas are CHEAPER.

    This means lots of other things we buy on a regular basis are cheaper as well, food being one of them. Natural gas is a the primary feedstock for nitrogen fertilizers, and these fertilizers are one of most farmers larger expenses.

    Cheap nitrates aren’t good for the environment, when they run off into rivers, but they sure as hell mean affordable food for poor people, and even middle class people would be eating damned little meat if it weren’t for cheap grain made possible by cheap nitrates.

    1. Hmm, I wonder if this has anything at all to do with that global warming hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, that all those nefarious globalist climate scientists are living high off the hog on?!

      Not to mention the global conspiracy of 195 countries that signed onto the Paris Climate accord. leaving the valiant countries of Nicaragua, Syria and the Great country of America to tilt at windmills! Granted Syria has some issues to deal with at the moment and Nicaragua thinks the accord doesn’t go quite far enough so I guess that leaves the USA as the only country in the entire world to be officially anti science and anti renewable energy on a national scale.

      Mind you, even wacko Kim Jong-un of North Korea signed on. I guess those Chinese must have fallen for their own hoax and decided to take over the global alternative energy business and become world leaders in PV and Wind technology. Trump must be laughing at how he pulled the wool over their eyes and fooled them into leaving all that coal for America…

      1. What other explanation could there be?
        Inquiring minds want to know—-

      2. The fundamental problem with the agreement was how it asked Americans to sacrifice personal lifestyles and freedoms while asking little to nothing from countries like India and China. That’s just not a good deal for us. However if the deal can be made more equal so no one has to give up any creature comforts then America could always get back in. Trump always said there’s plenty of possibility to make things fairer and bring Americans back in.

      3. Hmm, I wonder if this has anything at all to do with that global warming hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, that all those nefarious globalist climate scientists are living high off the hog on?!

        Alternatively the Chinese might believe in Peak Oil and are preparing accordingly. Last time I checked they were increasing their oil reserves as if there was no (oil) tomorrow. If your intention is to transition, what is the point in accumulating huge amounts of the old energy vector?

          1. They are not maintaining the insurance, they are greatly expanding their insurance coverage for the old house. Looks like they fear an accident before they can sell it.

  39. https://www.space.com/37572-jeff-bezos-trillion-people-solar-system.html

    Jeff Bezos has a dream of a trillion humans inhabiting the solar system!

    And Elon Musk wants humans to colonize Mars.

    OK, I was once a big space colonization dreamer, but as I grew older I became quite the realist.

    How about these big dreamers figure out how we create a sustainable home planet? If they want to do great things in space to help make that happen, my suggestion is for them to turn their creative energies to designing and building space-based solar power systems to beam energy to Earth with microwaves aimed at terrestrial rectennas. In the meantime, in parallel, they can turn their talents to covering most roofs and parking lots and other appropriate venues with solar panels and also promoting more win energy, workable energy storage systems (small and large-scale), and greatly increased energy efficiency. Promoting breakthroughs in World-wide birth control and family planning would be great too.

    I know, I know…it’s not the technology, it’s overcoming the evil corporate overlords and the idiocracy class that support them….technology is easy compared to amending human nature to be tribal and stupid.

  40. POBers,

    I have an friend who is skeptical that EVs can be produced without the battery production causing grievous pollution, and further has skepticism that EVs would offer a net energy savings over ICE vehicles.

    She is intelligent and concerned about human environmental impacts and sustainability…she astutely said : “if we really wanted to reduce transportation energy use we would all take public transportation”.

    Does anyone have any links to analyses comparing the environmental impacts of ICE passenger vehicle production and use to EVs?

    Thank you in advance for any help!

    2. Actually, the most efficient form of transportation are electric rail and EVs with multiple passengers.

      Mass transit overall is not clean: you need buses to feed rail, and the buses have to run 24×7 with very low utilization, if people are going to depend on it for all their needs.

      EVs have great synergy with wind and solar, and promote their expansion. Analyses of EVs have to take into account the fact that their charging can be dynamically scheduled to use wind and solar – a simple measure of average grid CO2 intensity is very misleading.

      1. Although electric rail is efficient, the problem with passenger trains is that they must run near empty for many of their trips since the flow of people is mostly directional. Average commuter rail uses 1,608 BTU/pass-mi.
        An EV does about 1000 BTU/pass-mi with one passenger and half that with two and it does this both ways, never runs empty (not yet at least). Fully loaded with passengers makes the EV the most efficient motor vehicle around.

        1. Yeah, utilization rates are the Achilles heel of rail and mass transit. Electric rail is my main form of transportation at the moment (it’s chauffeured!!), but I’ll probably always need a personal vehicle, and that will be true of most people until autonomous driving really proves itself.

          1. Luckily with the advent of electric cars we have more than one good alternative.
            The really nice thing about EV’s (and this will get better) is that they are at least twice as efficient at low speeds and very efficient in the stop and go traffic of congested areas so the numbers are even better than above.
            I like trains, but they go nowhere near me except for one and that goes in the wrong direction. Believe me, I would not miss winter driving if given the option.

  41. The Every Energy Plan
    As oil faded out as the one and all fuel for everything from heating, electric power and transport, other energy sources were brought on line and more have been added to the mix over time. People are trying every kind of oil (or close to oil), natural gas, synthetic fuels, bio-fuels, solar power, and wind power with more hydro power on top of fits and starts of nuclear power. It’s a Hunter’s Stew of energy right now to feed the growing maw of world demand where large populations are moving into the energy hungry mix from a low energy life style.
    We can discuss all day which energy types will fail and which will grow. We know fossil fuels are limited, but how limited is still somewhat in unknown territory. We know that biofuels are probably an energy sink to just barely positive and that hydrogen is just an energy carrier, though useful as storage.
    It’s going to be a really interesting time over the next decade. I hope some sense and logic prevails over the typical self-interest and pseudo-economic beliefs.

    1. What would you file this under?

      Koch Brothers Attack Electric Cars With Misinformation Campaign Again

      A video from the Fueling U.S. Forward organization attempts to pull at the public’s heartstrings by showing child labor. Fueling U.S. Forward, run by oil lobbyist, Charles Drevena, is an attempt to promote fossil fuels. Of course, the organization is funded by none other than the Koch brothers.

      These two have been at it for some time, first attacking EV subsidies (although the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed substantial subsidizing for years), then trying to prove that electric cars are dirtier than ICE cars due to the electricity’s energy source (which has been debunked more times than we can count). Not to mention that their fossil fuel efforts are what is causing the pollution in the first place.

      I’d say the “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” section would be a good fit.

    2. I agree.

      A couple of quibbles: oil was never the dominant source of energy for home heating and electrical generation, except for relatively small portions of the world. And, I’d say that bio-fuels are kind’ve like hydrogen, in that they kind’ve function like an energy carrier – in other words, the fact that they’re not a large net source of energy doesn’t really reduce their value. Ethanol probably has a 5:1 liquid fuel return on liquid fuel invested, which is a more important measure.

      1. For a period of time oil was cheap enough that many oil fired generator plants built. Still have some around that are used for back-up.

        I disagree on ethanol, no real gain in energy from that one when one considers the total inputs, not just liquid. Plus it has huge downside of taking away food producing farmland. Converting soil, coal, and natural gas into ethanol is not a winner by any means.
        Somebody is paying for all that complexity needed to get that ethanol and everybody will pay higher food prices.

        1. Sure – we’re quibbling over details.

          At roughly it’s peak in 1979 oil represented about 20% of electrical generation in the US. That’s not nothing, but oil wasn’t the dominant source of electrical generation.

          I agree that ethanol is not an overall energy source. And, yes, it causes higher food prices. Farmers consider that a feature, not a bug. Seriously – that’s the primary reason for our ethanol policy.

          1. Making corn farmers rich through energy policy is not my goal in life, quite the opposite, unless that is drinkable alcohol. 🙂

  42. SUMMER SEA ICE MELT IN THE ARCTIC

    “Most of the central Arctic Ocean used to be covered with thick multiyear ice that would not completely melt during the summer and reflect back sunshine,” said Nathan Kurtz, IceBridge’s project scientist and a sea ice researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “But we have now lost most of this old ice and exposed the open ocean below, which absorbs most of the sun’s energy. That’s one reason the Arctic warming has increased nearly twice the global average — when we lose the reflecting cover of the Arctic Ocean, we lose a mechanism to cool the planet.”

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170724133153.htm

    1. The local big river was a nice temperature yesterday, just enough to cool off. Bald eagles fishing and Cedar Waxwings chasing bugs. Shad looking like little sharks with their fins up above the water. People in kayaks and canoes enjoying nature. An area preserved by our national and state governments and well worth any cost to do so.

      The Arctic is still a bit cold for standard swimwear. Why don’t we run heat pipes down from the Arctic across Canada to cool off the South and the middle latitudes in the summer? Would save a lot of electricity. We could move some heat up to those chilly Canadians in the winter too.

      1. Still more ice than in 2007 and 2012, so 10 years of no melting. Exposing the ocean below makes the earth lose more energy, not the opposite.

        1. Hey Javier, you came back.
          Just wondering about your view of the fossil record and prehistory. Do you really think that dinosaurs existed? If you do, do you believe the time period for them as laid out by paleontologists?

          1. I’ve never gone away. I just stop commenting and reading the open threads from time to time.

            Some of you are so convinced the world is subject to catastrophic global warming that it is going to be fun to see that story debunked over the next decade.

          1. If you doubt that sea ice acts as an insulator during the winter, reducing oceanic heat loss, you should read the scientific literature about that.

            Did you look what happened to Arctic sea ice in the winter of 2012-2013, after the record low of 2012? A rebound that surprised scientists. Some of them were predicting a decreased albedo driven spiral of death. Very funny. As usual the alarmist prediction cratered, as sea ice has been growing in the Arctic since 2012.

            1. Broken record, try reality. Of course the Arctic freezes over in the winter, but not as thick, gets thinner every year.

        3. Oopsy, sorry there is currently less ice now than at the minimum in 2012 and way less than 2007 even though it’s not September yet. I know sea ice concentration and volume are a bit above your level, but trust me.

            1. I will try to simply explain the situation. Think of swiss cheese. Maybe it is 3 inches by 6 inches. But it’s true area is not 18 inches, because it is full of holes.
              Arctic Ice is like that Javier, it is full of holes which is why concentration and volume are the only accurate measurement of the amount of ice. Thickness counts too, like the difference between a thick slice of cheese and a thin slice. Arctic Ice is thinner now and getting thinner each year.
              Hope this isn’t over your head, maybe a picture will help.
              The spaces between the ice are open water and the ice is thin.
              With ice extent that would be considered 100 percent covered. Not reality.

            2. The explanations by alarmists are getting sillier.

              Now they want us to believe that more sea ice extent actually means less ice.

  43. I got a phone call a couple hours from an acquaintance that works at the local electricity utility. He wanted the name of the guy that did the youtube video I had told him about (Tony Seba). I quickly sent him a link to the latest video, the new report he has co-authored and another video describing the pending disruption of the auto manufacturing industry. While getting this information together I watched a section of a video that I thought I should bring up here lest people think that Seba’s predictions are all rosy. Below is an excerpt from the transcript of The Edge of Disruption Automotive, Petroleum and Steel Industries – Tony Seba starting from about 34 minutes 15 seconds in:

    34:15 But the u.s., the vehicle fleet shrinks by 80% which means, what does it mean for the auto industry? If you’re an auto manufacturer here’s what it means. That demand for new cars is going to shrink by 70%. So the size of the industry is going to go down by 70% at the same time that we have hundreds of electric vehicle companies coming into the space. So if you’re an auto manufacturer it’s going to be ugly. It’s gonna be ugly right?”

    He goes on immediately following that to say oil demand is going to peak in 2020 and that it will decline by 30% by 2030. Basically he forecasting a bloodbath in the oil industry going forward.

    1. Tony is a visionary, almost scary.

      That is great news, even if he is off by a few years. Also there will be a flood of cheap used vehicles on the market as people dump cars and move to autonomous so us rural folk can buy some of those. Also the roads will in general be much safer, due to less traffic and robots usually don’t purposely try and injure you (unlike nutty humans).
      ‘The shake-up in the industry is going to be something to watch. I just wonder if the PV/wind market and the electric grid can keep up at first. They have to evolve along with the EV.

      1. The fact that EVs can charge when demand is low, or wind/solar generation are high, means that EVs should help the grid.

        1. In Tony’s vision of transport, the EV will be on the road much more, in demand not charging. Plus there will be a lot less of them and they will need charging fast and on company terms. Unlike the private EV which sits most of the time and might be able to charge when there is excess power going into the system.
          Basically, company hired transport will not be as flexible as private transport. Though they may find ways around that, such as fast battery replacement at company depots.

          1. Yes, it does seem like higher utilization rates would reduce flexibility. But, it won’t eliminate it. And if there continues to be a large differential between peak and off-peak rates, there will be a large incentive for EV fleet operators to find ways to charge off-peak. Perhaps, as you say, with swapped batteries, or fixed batteries that intermediate between the grid and the fleet of EVs.

            1. I am sure they will figure it out if the demand is there. EV’s are a must have, how the industry deploys them depends on demand/technology advances and reliability. Either way, the change will happen and possibly quickly.
              It would be nice to have the city and town roads with less traffic, but how would that affect taxation for roads and bridges? New ways, new taxes.

            2. Or

              “Instantly Rechargeable” Batteries Almost Ready For Production

              Ask even the most die-hard EV enthusiasts about the biggest drawback to electric cars, and the answer will be batteries. The problem isn’t with operating range – after all, internal combustion engines have a limited range as well. It’s the extended time required to recharge the batteries, up to several hours versus just a few minutes for a refueling stop, that kills the electric car for many people. That problem, however, could now be solved thanks to researchers at Purdue University. And if the solution is as viable as the report from Futurism suggests, we could be looking at a complete game changer for the world of electric motoring.

              The technology is a new kind of flow battery that isn’t recharged through electricity, but by removing and replacing the battery’s fluid electrolytes. Without getting too technical, as the power runs low, you stop and drain the spent fluid in the battery then refill with charged fluid. The process would be much like stopping to fill up the gas tank, with the only difference being the need to remove the existing fluid first. That could be as simple as a remove-and-replace function using a specially designed electrolyte “gas” pump, giving new life to the batteries in just a few minutes.

              That would give the gas station business model a chance to continue to exist. Many people do not realize that gas stations cannot simply become charging stations, having been designed to have a certain number of pumps each serve more than ten customers per hour. What happens when customers have to spend upwards of fifteen minutes at the “pump” to get a meaningful dose of range?

              On the other hand, if most cars are owned by Transport as a Service outfits, the fleet owners may opt to own and operate their own electrolyte swapping depots.

              I see short haul trucking as a good fit for swappable batteries with battery modules that can be swapped out while the truck is being reloaded.

            3. Sounds good. EV’s will be made workable. There are large incentives to do so, economic, societal and moral.

      2. “Tony is a visionary, almost scary.”
        what’s your opinion:
        can you tell me what his best prediction has been that has now come true?
        and if he is off by 20 years on his latest predictions, what kind of visionary will he be?

        I mean, I’ve seen some of his stuff, and my memory isn’t so great, so I’m curious.
        I just don’t recall that any of his stuff has come true yet.

        1. can you tell me what his best prediction has been that has now come true?

          Hey Frankenstein, did Igor get you the moron’s brain by mistake?!

          Hint: Tony Seba is NOT in the prediction business… but most kids who completed the 8th grade could probably explain that to you.

        2. See the excerpt from the transcript of one his videos towards the end of this comment further up:

          “And that’s what I predicted. Even three years ago, what did folks tell me about that prediction? You’re insane! Right? Not going to happen. Guess what did happen?”

          I’ve seen other recent presentations in which he says costs for electricity for solar are significantly ahead of his projections when he published his book in 2014.

          1. I know he said that but he still is not making absolute predictions about any specific occurrence. Even in your latest link he is discussing the ‘Edge of Possibilities’ Projections and possible scenarios are not the same as ‘Predictions’, same thing applies to The Club of Rome which you here people saying all the time that they missed their predictions. Maybe it is too subtle a semantic quibble for most people but I stand by my point.

          2. Fred says he’s NOT in the prediction business…
            though Seba is quoted “And that’s what I predicted.”
            wow…
            he predicted as items scale up, costs come down…
            wow, he’s a visionary…
            it’s obvious that EV’s are scaling up…
            “… he has upped the ante and is now saying that the ICE will all but disappear by 2025.”
            maybe… we’ll see…
            if he’s wrong, do we take away his Visionary Card?
            so what do we call the person(s) who had the insight that a panel could be invented to produce electricity from sunlight?
            the word “visionary” doesn’t seem adequate.

            1. Hey Franky, what is your point? Do you have any actual input into this or are you just another peanut gallery naysayer. Are you saying he is wrong, which way?

              We would like to hear your actual ideas on the subject. Maybe you can back them up with graphs or not, but at least put some facts and reality on the table. What do you think will happen in the next 10 to 15 years?

            2. mostly I was annoyed by the loose use of the word “visionary”…
              in 10 to 15 years?
              widespread personal ownership of EV’s.
              almost zero self-driving cars, probably only in a few cities with roads and intersections equipped for such vehicles…
              as economical substitutes for taxis.
              my understanding is that there has been not 2 million miles but closer to zero “driverless” miles.
              videos always seem to show a “driver” in the “driver’s seat” just in case, when on actual real roads, that is…
              but I’m no visionary…

            3. Thanks, my personal view is that autonomous vehicles will be most useful on major highways, but that could change very quickly.
              Drivers in the seat due to legal restrictions and obviously these are tests to see how well they work in real situations.
              Seen the SpaceX booster landings? Autonomous is moving along fast, very fast. It was just a few years ago NASA showed a small test rocket lift off a few feet and hover, then land back on the ground.
              Cars are tricky though, lots of varied input in a mixed chaotic environment in the city. Might take a few years to iron that out. It will never be perfect but will probably be much better than human drivers, which is the goal.

            4. thanks…
              I know that “the goal” is not perfection…
              better than human drivers makes sense…
              I just don’t think it will become widespread…

              and costs… IF autonomous vehicles don’t scale up into the millions, I expect cost per car to be over the price range for most persons.

            5. Costs? Since most of the vehicles are predicted to be owned by money making corporations using them as taxis and renting them out, cost is not much of an issue. Also since maintenance is low and fuel is cheaper cost is less than an ICE. Let alone the idea that they will last longer.

            6. Annoyed by the use of the word visionary?

              Visionary: thinking about or planning the future with imagination or wisdom.

              People are allowed to do that you know, the thought police haven’t stopped that yet.
              Maybe soon if certain political/religious leaders have their way. Or maybe they will just be sucked up in a version of the “rapture”.

            7. Seba…
              compare to Fritts et al that you reference below…

              perhaps I’m being unfair to Seba…
              but I remain unimpressed…
              oh well, I’m unimpressive also.

            8. “so what do we call the person(s) who had the insight that a panel could be invented to produce electricity from sunlight?”
              Scientists. We call them scientists. Explorers of reality and the universe at large.

              The photoelectric effect was first discovered and investigated over a century ago.
              “In 1905, Einstein proposed an explanation of the photoelectric effect using a concept first put forward by Max Planck that light waves consist of tiny bundles or packets of energy known as photons or quanta.
              K_{\max }=h\,f-\varphi ,”

              “The photovoltaic effect was first observed by French physicist A. E. Becquerel in 1839. He explained his discovery in Les Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences, “the production of an electric current when two plates of platinum or gold immersed in an acid, neutral, or alkaline solution are exposed in an uneven way to solar radiation.”[2]”
              You too can query Wikipedia and other sources.
              Scientists have known about the phenomenon for a long time and it has taken advances in engineering, solid state material science and societal demand to finally get the application to a practical state for power generation.
              Charles Fritts, an American inventor, described the first solar cells made from selenium wafers way back in 1883.
              “1954 Photovoltaic technology is born in the United States when Daryl Chapin, Calvin Fuller, and Gerald Pearson develop the silicon photovoltaic (PV) cell at Bell Labs—the first solar cell capable of converting enough of the sun’s energy
              into power to run everyday electrical equipment. Bell Telephone Laboratories produced a silicon solar cell with 4% efficiency and later achieved 11% efficiency.”

              https://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/solar_timeline.pdf

    2. He goes on immediately following that to say oil demand is going to peak in 2020 and that it will decline by 30% by 2030. Basically he forecasting a bloodbath in the oil industry going forward.

      Ironically I just came across this article:
      https://www.ecowatch.com/stranded-assets-2461464857.html

      Big Oil Forecast: Entering the Age of Stranded Assets

      “Fossil fuel corporations continue to focus on new fossil fuel exploration and development,” Friends of the Earth added. “This is increasing the amount of “assets” the world economy cannot afford to use—assets which will become ‘stranded.'”

      To make matters worse for the industry, it has become increasingly clear over the last few months that the coming electric vehicle revolution will also have a huge impact on oil demand. As Reuters pointed out last week, “Investors may be entering the age of ‘stranded assets,’ and it very likely could be driven as much by technological change as by climate change.”

      The writing has been on the wall for oil investors for a while as they bet on an industry beset by low prices, increasing competition from renewables and the threat of global action on climate change.

      But still belligerently people invest in fossil fuels, with devastating results.

      The Wall Street Journal on Sunday ran the headline, “From $2 Billion to Zero: A Private-Equity Fund Goes Bust in the Oil Patch.” The Journal reported how “A $2 billion private-equity fund that borrowed heavily to buy oil and gas wells before energy prices plunged is now worth essentially nothing, an unusual debacle that is wiping out investments by major pensions, endowments and charitable foundations.”

      No one ever said that disruptions do not cause a lot of pain! Imagine all the blacksmiths who made horse shoes in NYC back in 1900 and suddenly all carriages were horseless by 1913. Some of them probably learned to patch flat tires and do engine repairs but one can only imagine the social costs to such a rapid and massive technology shift. There are bound to be winners and losers.

      On the other hand if the Koch Brothers ended up broke and died in the poorhouse I don’t think too many people would feel sorry for them… No, I don’t think that will actually happen but I can dream, can’t I?! 😉

      1. Keep dreaming Fred. The oil kingdom will fall, just don’t need it to take down the whole ball of wax.
        The transistion may happen faster than the depletion curve. Of course that will present a lot of problems in itself, but at least it will ease or prevent the first predicament pain. It will also present a lot of opportunity and maybe, just maybe get people thinking aqnd acting along the right track.

        1. Keep dreaming Fred. The oil kingdom will fall, just don’t need it to take down the whole ball of wax.

          I’m not too worried just yet. We have the Trump administration working overtime to make sure it doesn’t happen too fast.

          https://thinkprogress.org/doe-study-efficiency-5de41805e5d8

          Energy efficiency is a huge money saver — but the Trump administration is against it

          Leaked report explains energy efficiency policies will save consumers $545 billion.

          I’m sure they can keep plugging the holes in the dike for a long time to come…
          .

          1. This is getting plain outright embarrassing. Can he be jailed for purposeful harm to the people, the environment and the planet?

            1. Can he be jailed for purposeful harm to the people, the environment and the planet?

              You mean can he and his entire administration be tried for crimes against humanity?! There is some historical precedent for that… Including some of the convicted criminals being sentenced to death.

      2. Talk about stranded assets- think about all the tens of millions of ICE cars production yr 2016 and beyond. Many of these vehicles have excellent longevity. Its a going to be an increasingly tough decision whether to invest in one of these vs the electrics coming on board, particularly if batteries make a new plateau in the density/cost equation.
        A very large slug of newish vehicles are just starting to come off of lease contracts now as well, beginning to flood the market with 2-3 yr old vehicles.

        1. Just one more thing to be put in the good ole days nostalgia category. A whole cult could rise from the ashes of the ICE. with their theme song being “Get your motor running. Head out on the highway.” ICE car gangs rolling into town spewing stink and pollution, causing fear and disgust as old men with paunches hanging over belts exit their vehicles straight into the restaurant. I can see it now. Anger rising in the town as they deride the EV owners. The StinkCar gang has arrived. Where is Marlon Brando when you need him? 🙂

  44. “The US departments of Homeland Security and Labor have announced that they will issue up to 15,000 additional H-2B visas for temporary, non-agricultural workers this year. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly explained the decision to increase the Congressionally-approved cap of 66,000 H-2B visas per year as a supply-and-demand problem: “there are not enough qualified and willing US workers available” to meet the demands of American businesses. Over two-thirds of those using the H-2B visas last year were from Mexico, and most commonly work in industries such as landscaping, housekeeping and forestry. Concern for business owners’ bottom lines may have superseded, or “at least contrast[s] with the president’s regular campaign-trail refrain that his White House would advocate in favor of ‘Buy American, Hire American’ practices,” notes Louis Nelson for Politico. —YaleGlobal”
    Politico: Trump Administration to Allow for 15,000 More Foreign Workers

    This is a twenty four carat gold plated cast iron crock of shit argument.

    If the contractors want more help, all they have to do is offer more money, and the help will be waiting at the door when they get there.

    Of course this is good business for the well to do people who OWN these companies, lol.

    But it means that fifteen thousand local people are underbid for the same jobs.

    I run or used to run a small business, and I could hire migrants, and occasionally did do so. But they didn’t save me any money, in the END, because my competitors could do the same thing, and in a competitive industry, the owners of businesses NECESSARILY pass along their expenses, and competition FORCES them to pass along any savings as well, over the middle to long term.

    Poor unskilled LOCAL people who need those fifteen thousand jobs are on the receiving end of involuntary dry sex.

    But that’s ok, because they can go on welfare, and deal a little dope, or do a little shop lifting, or whatever, to help make ends meet, lol.

    And people who are making plenty of money can hire their lawns manicured a few dollars cheaper, meaning they can afford a couple more six dollar coffees.

    And those local people at some point realize that the BAU/Clinton Democratic Party doesn’t really give a shit about them, at least not THESE DAYS, and that the Republican establishment likewise doesn’t give a fuck, and SO they vote for the CLOSEST THING on the ballot to an OUTSIDER- Trump, who let’s not forget HIJACKED the Republican Party, which absolutely DID NOT WANT HIM.

    1. You know the routine OFM, bring down the pay of the American worker and bring up the pay of the Mexican worker. Soon the differential will be close enough that it won’t be worth working in the US anymore. They can stay home and everybody will be happy. Except all those Americans getting the equivalent of five bucks an hour. No need for a wall, just screw the poor Americans.
      I don’t know about your state but welfare here only lasts a few years then nothing.

      Why aren’t those good ole country boys developing some crafts and music to sell? They got lots of time, make some rustic furniture or pottery, maybe some turkey calls. Wood carvings too. Heck I knew some old guys that picked berries and lead to sell during the Depression. The lead came from the Army artillery range. Berries probably did too. Raised rabbits and caught fish for food and money. What ever happened to American grit? Knew another guy that carved pipes and another that made decorative shelves.
      Sell worms to the fishermen. Worms are easy to raise. Bait fish are easy to catch. Cash is cash. Sport fishermen can’t stop fishing. Tie flies and sell them. Lots of ways to make money.

Comments are closed.