51 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, July 3, 2021”

  1. Sometime soon the world may hit peal energy/capita. keep in mind that the largest sources of primary energy consumed in the world is oil (33%) and coal (27%). This 60% of total energy consumed is at or near peak, while population is growing briskly and is on track to hit 9 billion (up from 7.8 today) in the next decade.

    It is pretty straightforward to project a period of much higher energy prices, even without any charges or constraints imposed for the carbon dioxide problem (carbon tax, carbon sequestration, carbon offset fees, project cancellations, deceased capital expenditure for fossil fuel production).
    And not just higher pricing, but many places will simply not be able import the amount of fuel they ‘need’.

    That brings up an important question- what is need, vs what is want? Want equates to discretionary energy consumption? Many things we take for granted in modern life are in the energy discretionary category
    -food from outside your local area
    -travel beyond your county
    -powering a cell phone
    These are life optional things.
    Discretionary energy use will get whittled down, except for among the very wealthy of course.

    More on the concept of discretionary energy here-
    ‘the continuity of discretionary consumption has already, and over an extended period, become a function of credit expansion. Borrowing, whether by households, businesses or governments, has become the ever more important prop supporting everything from travel and leisure to the purchase of non-essential goods.
    The ability of the average Western person to afford discretionary consumption without recourse to borrowing ceased growing, and started to shrink, between fifteen and twenty years ago.’
    https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/

    1. Hi!
      These thoughts deserve some comments.

      There are all kinds of problems. The first one is that humans seeks to expand their energy use, as do animals in fact. So when we seek degrowth of energy use, how do we really do that? It is difficult, but more easy to accept for the ones that already have an excessive consumption. If substitutes are almost equally good, that is. At least in Europe, the idea seems to be to stabilise energy consumption per capita for as long as possible. That means green energy replacing oil/gas/coal for as long as possible. And in the end the transition means that the next generation is still better off as a starting point than if no green energy policies had been put in place in the first place.

      The best is if wind energy for example can put the energy consumption stable the next decade in Northern Europe. In the UK, 500 Twh of fossil fuels are used within transportation. Lets say half of that is electrified. Efficient use can cut the 250 Twh of fossil source use to 100 Twh of wind power electricity diverted to transportation. For Norway it could be more easy to be replacing 80-90% of transportation consumption to green electricity due to the combination of enough hydro/wind power. And the next lower hanging fruit is heat pumps in the northern hemisphere.

      The energy/capita growth will not last forever, and it is probably healthy to consume more within the habitat boundaries. Easy to say when rich enough though.

      1. >The first one is that humans seeks to expand their energy use

        I disagree with this claim. Most people don’t even know what energy is. They want the convenience to getting from A to B, but how much energy that costs doesn’t matter to them. So whether that’s a 1974 Cadillac El Dorado with an 8 liter engine or a modern EV that uses a tenth as much energy doesn’t really matter.

        People like warm houses in the winter, But whether it insulation or energy that delivers that isn’t the question.
        Lighting is another good example.The Republicans (somewhat mysteriously) try to make hay with anti-LED propaganda, but it’s a doomed proposition, because nobody really cares — LEDs are taking over because they are cheap and offer better features, and that means people are using much less energy for lighting.

        When I was growing up, kids used to drive downtown in their cars and spend the whole weekend cruising up and down the main street. Now they sit at home and chat with they mobile phones. The goals is to meet people, but the amount of effort involved has been greatly reduced.

    2. At least per capita crude and condensate appears to be in a downward trend.

    3. Primary energy consumption peak may not reflect net useful energy peak. Most oil is used for transportation, and the move to electrification is sharply reducing the primary energy consumed per mile travelled. Most coal is used for electricity production, but wind and solar energy is converted directly to electricity. An electric car powered by wind or solar requires a quarter of the primary energy of an equivalent ICE car. Heating by natural gas is less efficient than an air or ground source heat pump. Improved insulation standards can dramatically reduce energy needed for space heating or cooling. Energy consumption for steel or concrete production is more problematic, but at least in industrialised countries there is still a lot of energy efficiency gains to be made. Most US cars and trucks are far larger, heavier and more powerful and use far more energy than is strictly necessary for the loads they carry and the speed they travel at.

      1. These things are true Ralph, but at the current pace of things we are on a path towards a sharp decline the energy available/capita. We need to dramatically upgrade the effort towards efficiency of energy use and production solar/wind.
        But nonetheless I believe it will be managed retreat.
        Retreat from having enough energy.
        Some places in more severe shortage than others,
        and certainly the situation will favor the wealthy. Nothing new in this regard.

        I think this energy shortfall will be enough to dramatically change what people think of as routine- almost all air travel, leisure travel in cruise-lines and RV’s, motorboating, discretionary spending on entertainment/celebration, fashion, ‘health products’, foods from afar except on your bithday perhaps, new vehicles, home improvements, optional technology purchases, for example.
        The ingredients all seem to be falling in place for a big belt tightening time.

        Lets remember that somewhere between 2 and 4 billion people already live below the international poverty line, and are intimately acquainted with these restrictions on all discretionary spending.

  3. “KUDOS to the residents of the 20 states and D.C. that have already achieved the 70% goal: Vermont, Hawaii and Massachusetts are at 80%+, and Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Maryland, California, Washington, New Hampshire, New York, Illinois, Virginia, Delaware, Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon and D.C. are all over 70%.”

    1. I trust neither what the media tells us about the pandemic, nor the efficacy or safety of their supposedly curative vaccines.

      Why should I believe them when they lie about everything constantly?

      Just in case you think I’m a nutter, I’m a nonreligious urban center-left physician who has been following energy related topics for more than 10 years. I’m one of you. We’re not all sitting in our basements clutching our crucifixes and pictures of Reagan and Trump. That’s an illusion that you made up that has no basis in reality. Just like your illusion that Obama and Biden represent some sort of saviors from whatever came before them.

      1. Why should I believe them when they lie about everything constantly?

        Just who are “them” who are lying constantly? And why are they lying, what is the motive of “them” that causes all of “them” to constantly lie?

        Well, I guess a nonreligious urban center-left physician can be paranoid as well.

        1. Hey Ron, I don’t know if you saw this video when I posted it in the previous thread but the title speaks for itself:

          Pursuing Truth in COVID Drug Treatment Amid a Censored Media Landscape

          A lot more information on what is going on with “early treatment” is at https://covid19criticalcare.com/ . The doctor featured in the video above is a founding member of the group that put the web site together. They have been at loggerheads with the public health agencies from the very start by insisting that outcomes with this disease can be improved significantly by administering existing therapeutics. The recommendations from public health agencies for people who get this virus continue to be to , isolate, quarantine and do nothing until you are sick enough to require medical care. I find that just crazy!

          There’s also the matter of this news report from Australia:

          COVID patient with sepsis makes ‘remarkable’ recovery following ……..

          I find it extremely curious how this story did mot make headlines outside of Australia and one tv station in the Philippines. What do you think about this stuff? It seems that many people are unwilling to even consider anything that does not conform to the prevailing narrative. In that case, what’s the point of having a discussion?

          With people like Ron Johnson looking into early treatment, this has become highly politicized and now liberals and progressives are lumping discussions of early treatment with “Jewish space lasers”!

          1. From https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

            “These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.36″

            Anecdotal data is not very convincing. As the source notes:

            “Concluding, research related to ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in very low certainty of the evidence, and continues to grow.37–39 The use of ivermectin, among others repurposed drugs for prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19, should be done based on trustable evidence, without conflicts of interest, with proven safety and efficacy in patient-consented, ethically approved, randomised clinical trials.”

            1. Why is there such skepticism about the studies that have shown encouraging results for out of patent drugs? Can anyone name one such drug that has got approval from the major public health agencies? Expensive, patented drugs like remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies were touted as treatments and got approval despite questionable efficacy? Why are people so willing to trust corporations that have a huge stake in the outcome of these studies? I tend to be highly skeptical of anyone that is touting something that they are trying to sell me, especially if I sense they are going to make a handsome profit from it!

              It appears to me that most of the studies that were carried out on ivermectin were done by practicing clinicians looking to help their patients rather than corporate or academic researchers. Is this the reason for the scorn with which their work is being treated? Many of these studies were small and self funded and there is no single company that will be able to reap huge windfall profits from this drug. If anything, the conflict of interest exists in the main study that shows no efficacy (Lopez-Medina), with the principal authors of that study receiving funding from companies that have competing patented products.

            2. I think it has more to do with having evidence that stands up to scrutiny. There needs to be rigor in who you’re testing, what you’re testing, and what the results are.

              It’s more than just collecting anecdotes.

              Some people have shown that vagina-scented candles can ease Covid-19. They didn’t conduct any rigorous studies either.

            3. “Some people have shown that vagina-scented candles can ease Covid-19. They didn’t conduct any rigorous studies either.”

              Really? What is the proposed mechanism of action for these vagina scented candles? Those who are claiming that ivermectin is effective have suggested several plausible mechanisms of action to support their claims.

              The one study that was the backbone of the claim that it is not effective was not very rigorous either and was fraught with conflicts of interest. Have you looked at any of the studies or meta-analyses in any detail?

              This whole situation reminds me of Koch Brothers’ funded “science” aimed at casting doubt on the idea that climate science is settled

          2. Islandboy, I think you are confusing “covid treatment” with “covid prevention”. All three of the links you posted had to do with the treatment of Covid 19 after they had contracted the virus. I have no problem whatsoever with people trying every possible treatment to cure themselves after they have the disease. After all, Trump got such a dose of everything but the kitchen sink when he caught the virus.

            My problem is with the anti-vaccers. These people are blooming idiots. Many claims that the vaccine will give them covid. These nutcases are causing deaths, not preventing them.

            I do hope you now understand where I stand on the subject.

            1. At about three minutes into the video on censorship, Dr. Joseph Varon says,

              “And it actually has been shown to improve the outcomes of patients with covid as well as with prevention of covid. I’m sure you are familiar with the newest data from India and from Mexico where actually in those states where they have given ivermectin prophylactically there are much less numbers of covid cases.”

              Shortly after that quote, they put up the pdf shown below and quickly scrolled through the entire document (PDF).

              There is no confusion. The FLCCC Alliance is definitely making the claim that ivermectin is effective in preventing the transmission of the disease, largely based on a study done by one Dr. Hector Carvallo in Argentina. I have become extremely cynical when it comes to trusting that the corporations that have the most to loose or gain from this state of affairs will behave ethically and not resort to all sorts of dirty tactics to get their way. Since you brought up Trump’s recovery, that alone is proof that doctors can prevent even the most at risk individuals from dying! I’d add that Chris Christie provides further evidence.

              Despite my stance on ivermectin vs vaccines, I tell people in my neck of the woods that ivermectin is only available at black market prices if you can find it locally. I then tell them that if they are not absolutely confident that their immune system can beat this disease they should get vaccinated ASAP. I am not telling anybody not to get vaccinated but, for those that say they do not want the vaccines, I try to inform them about the treatment protocols that have been developed by some doctors.

          3. Hey islandBoy,
            I see that Jamaica has only had about %6 population receiving one vaccine does as of now. That is very unfortunate. I hope the supply comes soon and that you can get yours soon!
            Secondly, I don’t know much about Ivermectin treatment- I’ll leave that to the infectious disease experts across the world to sort out. There are literally tens of thousands such scientists engaged on this issue across the world, eagerly looking for best/effective/safe treatment. No offense intended.
            Third, I wish you good and safe health.

      2. You must “believe” somebody, tho, because you’re no genius who can research everything himself. You must believe Some Dude On the Internet.

        How can you even verify the statement, “they lie about everything”?

        “I’m a nonreligious urban center-left physician.” Maybe YOU “lie about everything.”

        1. …and even if you are a genius who can research everything yourself, you still have to ‘believe’ somebody.

          an illusion that you made up that has no basis in reality

          I think you may have some illusions yourself.

      4. Dolph,
        I’m confused, to say the least, by your comment.
        So tell us, in plain language, what’s your professional opinion of the efficacy and safety of the vaccines that have been used so far here in the USA?

        How about a few examples of things the media supposedly constantly lies about, while you’re at it?

      5. Dolph,
        Just curious, what is your stance on early treatment? What would you advise a patient that has tested positive to do? What would you do if you tested positive and started having symptoms? I assume you would not take the “do nothing but, wait and see” approach.

      6. >supposedly curative vaccines

        Dolph
        If you want to pretend to be a doctor in chat, you ought to learn some basics. Vaccines are not supposed to cure diseases.

  5. From- Conversations at the Brink, Rita v23.7

    Alfreds Claim-
    “Solar and Wind energy require fossil fuel energy for their production, so they are simply not feasible to save the world from energy collapse”

    Ritas Response-
    “Oh don’t be so daft Alfred! Seriously, so what if solar and wind use some fossil fuel in their manufacture and or deployment. In the case of solar placed in a moderately sunny location a panel will make back all of the energy associated with its production, from mining to manufacture, in 2-4 years, depending. Comprehendo?”
    “And I didn’t hear you whining about the same issue with nuclear power or hydroelectricity!”
    “And furthermore, who the hell is claiming to save the world- that would be a fools errand. We are talking about a managed retreat from our extreme overshoot condition here Alfred. Get it?”

    Alfred- “I’m patriotic- I don’t retreat, and I never overshoot deary. I generally err to the right…”
    Rita- “Well that’s no fucking surprise.”

    1. The main problem, outside of the time lag and the resources needed to build out this vision, is that it’s not a palatable vision. It can only come to fruition if we literally tear the current one down and rebuild, which, last I checked, gave rise to the meme “it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism”.

      There are too many vested interests and people are too comfortable for this to come about easily. I mean, it’s also way too late in the day anyway, but mainly no one is going to win votes on degrowth. It’s essentially austerity 2.0, and that pill didn’t go down too well last time (and, also, the arguments will be shot down before being finished, since previously it was based on belt tightening in a world where wanton financial shenanigans were the way out. Physical limits won’t be a thing people consider when they think this cutting back is simply the elites hoarding wealth and pushing the false national-budget-as-home-budget narrative).

        1. On that, we can absolutely agree. It’s a pity we ran into this mess and are going to learn the hard way, rather than have had a fully sustainable and less consumerist culture decades before.

  6. Energy Poverty manifests in several ways- one regards cooking fuels.
    About 3 billion people are limited to cooking with coal, dung, wood or kerosene.

    The current scenario will result in many more of us joining their ranks.

    Interested in cooking with wood- check out ‘rocket stove’

    1. I cook with wood on 2 Solo Stoves, made for a lifetime and very efficient.
      I also cook with a solar oven. I can cook a gallon of stew without generating any heat, light, or smoke.

        1. How did you guess?
          I live on 5 wooded acres in a cabin I built. I grow a lot of food in my garden but it’s mainly for research on locally adapted herbs and food plants. I’ve been living here 24/7 for almost 10 years.

  7. There may be some light at the end of the tunnel, although I’m afraid the mountainside is very likely to collapse and bury the tracks past the end of the tunnel, lol.

    But I’m willing to believe there’s a chance the public will come to understand the situation we are in, in respect to the climate and the biosphere, and get behind a war time type economic program to do whatever can be done to save whatever can be saved….. at least in countries such as the USA and Western Europe.

    So…. continue to pray to your favorite snake or bear or rock or whatever for a series of PEARL HARBOR WAKE UP EVENTS…. that’s about our only real hope as I see it…… well, plus a demographic transition which is coming, I’m dead sure of it, politically, and have been talking about it for a long time now.
    Here’s a link about it.

    https://theweek.com/republicans/1002288/a-fresh-look-at-2020-electorate?utm_campaign=afternoon_newsletter_20210706&utm_source=afternoon_newsletter&utm_medium=email&refid=%7EREFERENCE_ID%7E

  8. This post marks the 200,000th post since this blog was started in 2013.

    All (200,000) | Mine (7,596) | Pending (0) | Approved (200,000)

  9. The FAO food price index dropped 2.5% to 124.6 for June, so edging away from the 130 limit where past years have shown social unrest may become more marked.

    1. Yes, after twelve months of consecutive rise, the FAO Food Price Index fell in June…

    2. Most of the drop was in the oil crop category. Strong world harvests of grain are expected however.

  11. Just noticed that Doug Leighton has no post on this thread . Hope you are ok .

  12. I’m looking for links to articles about stripping hydrogen out of natural gas that are technically oriented, but comprehensible to a reasonably well trained layman, as opposed to an engineer.

    Who’s doing it, where, at what scale, what is done with the carbon by product, etc.
    It occurs to me that since we’re still burning coal, and wood, that we might as well burn that carbon too, since it’s already handy, as opposed to coal in the ground or wood in the woodlot.
    But maybe it’s a very high quality carbon, meaning it’s very pure, nothing or at least not much in the way of contaminants, meaning it’s quite valuable as an industrial input material for manufacturing purposes?

    These are the sorts of questions I have.
    Any links covering such issues will be greatly appreciated and thanks in advance!

    2. Making hydrogen from natural gas (or any hydrocarbon) is reforming and has been around for over a hundred years. Depending on what you do with the syngas (H2, CO2 and CO) you can add nitrogen to make ammonia and fertilizers (Haber process) or adjust the mix a bit to make methanol (and then all sorts of plastics). I don’t know of any way to go to solid carbon – that is a coking reaction which is done with heavy oils but would be a bit of a waste with nat gas I should think, but may have some advantages.

  13. Death Valley just hit 130°F the past hour, breaking the all-time (reliably measured) world heat record of 129.9°F set August 16, 2020 at the same site. The final high may be a few tenths higher, and Saturday may be hotter.

Comments are closed.