120 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, June 27, 2024”

  1. From the end of the prior said it was said
    “Electrifying the economy requires a lot of discipline”

    Its a massive project, to replace ICE’s and other combustion loads. No doubt.
    And yet the alternative to the effort is a quick, chaotic and hot contraction.
    Probably will get that result anyway in large swaths of the world.

    1. Judging by the new ECS paper stuff, will be lucky we have until 2040.

    2. Hickory

      Thanks for the comments. The tradeoffs in this puzzle would never be easy.

      I respect Kleiber giving his comments as well. If it may not be easy solutions to all problems; I would like to listen to some proposals.

    3. What about other alternatives to personal ICE transportation? Here’s a quick list I can think of off the cuff:

      1) Increased public transportation
      2) Increased carpooling
      3) More white collar people working from home
      4) More people shopping from home??? (Could possibly save fuel if implemented correctly)
      5) More bicycling lanes

      I’m not totally convinced yet that swapping out ICEs for electrics is the best course of action. The core problem still remains – an infrastructure build around the excessive use of cars. We can still use the existing infrastructure, but we just have to be creative in our efforts to ditch the excessive use of 3000 pound vehicles.

      1. Swapping ICE for EV is for Big Auto, not any other benefit. Public transit and small personal conveyances like scooters or buggies no bigger than golf carts are all that’s needed.

        More trains and trams.

        1. I agree with your take on small vehicles. But I think that will be a tough sell here in the US of A. I think a lot of people will utilize smaller vehicles if they are financially forced to, but until then the American standard will be a lifted pickup for dad and a 3 row SUV for mom.

          1. There have been places that have adopted this, namely retirement villages in Florida last I checked. The concept is sound if people are given a way of life that allows them to adopt this. The problem is how most cities became sprawl, public transit was curtailed as Big Auto lobbied and took over tram and busways (check out this documentary called Who Framed Roger Rabbit?) and cheap energy and suburban living was making it all affordable and convenient.

            Walkable cities and towns and an emphasis on having people not need to commute miles because city living is super expensive and/or shit would go a long way to that.

            Just, uh, not under our current economic paradigm of profit.

          2. The problem is that despite a housing shortage, cities refuse to do any infill construction that would cut travel distances.

            California is particularly bad about this, but not alone.

            Manhattan needs it desperately, but the governor just stupidly killed congestion pricing and a major public transportation project. Meanwhile car traffic has clearly failed, and you can walk across the island as fast as you can drive. Biking is much faster. E-bikes are cursed, but there’s always room for SUVs.

            Most American cities completely ban corner stores and reserve the entire “city” to single family units on quarter acre lots. Buses are hopelessly mismanaged and underfunded. Streets are twice as wide as they need to be. And as a result, cities are going broke and look like shit. In short, barely anyone in charge knows how to build a city or design a traffic system.

            1. Not even just all that, but NYC along with Miami have the major problem of chronic flooding, not just from storm surge. And that’s getting token responses at best despite it being a thing that will absolutely make both inhospitable or at least unusable very soon.

              There is just no long term planning for anything , and if there is, no budget because why pay for thing that will happen later and isn’t impacting me, personally, right now?

              See also home insurance rates in the extreme weather hit portions of any nation now.

          3. Your younger daughter isn’t likely to have any real desire for a three row suv … because she isn’t going to be hauling around more than two kids of her own. Her friends and coworkers are having less than two each.

            But of course she’ll still be happy to spend her ( or his!) money on some other status symbol…. one that provides her with a bigger rush of pleasure.

            But you’re right, the guys are have bought into the pickup truck meme to the point it’s hopeless to expect them to change until they have to.

            But at least for the most part, for each tricked out truck you see, there’s one less flashy car. Newer pickups are so comfortable and drive so well that there’s no real difference between one and a nice car…. plus they’re actually useful for more than just personal transportation on numerous occasions.

            Furthermore, they’re usually slower to depreciate and on average cost less to maintain as the miles pile up.

            Depletion never sleeps, and it’s my rock solid belief, barring EV’s dominating the market within the next few years, that within five to ten years gasoline will be so expensive that anybody living paycheck to paycheck will be downsizing as a matter of necessity, if they can afford a new or newer vehicle.

            But most people just don’t take time to think such questions thru properly.

            I know a ton of people driving older ” gas hog” vehicles because doing so is for all practical purposes their best transportation option.

            I used to keep a compact car as well as a pickup and a larger truck. I saved enough on gasoline and wear and tear on the trucks to pencil out.

            Nowadays I have one OLD pickup truck, which IS in excellent condition, and will probably outlast my driving days. It’s a world class gas hog. Ten to maybe fourteen mpg at best.

            But taxes, insurance and depreciation are peanut items. It will cost only a quarter or a third as much, for repairs and maintenance, annually, as an average NEW 2024 model, over the next ten years. The secret is that it’s a pickup that was built using REAL truck stuff…. the same engine, transmission, etc, that usually goes into much larger trucks used for commercial purposes.

            NO payment of course. I’m at least five hundred bucks, and probably seven hundred or more, better off, month to month, bottom line, driving my old gas hog.

            ( And yes of course such RELIABLE old vehicles are almost as scarce as chicken teeth… It took me a couple of years to locate this one and buy it from it’s elderly former owner. )

            1. Good thinking, I`ve got a few old Volvos on standby, most with carburetors and non-electronic ignition, so the kids will be mobile if things get really bad.
              Also talked to the boss about getting an EV as part compensation, no worries, so not an immediate problem hopefully…
              (Got PV)

      2. Cactus,

        All good ideas.

        Carpooling is a choice, perhaps someone could make an app that makes it easier to connect people in carpools. On public transport, this works well in densely populated areas, but not as well in rural areas.
        Bicycles are nice for the young in warm climates, they can also be very dangerous when the road is shared with large vehicles. Smaller vehicles are likely a good idea, carbon taxes to make transport fuels more expensive might increase the uptake of smaller vehicles.

      3. Also better city planning to allow mixed use areas so people would be forced to travel so far. Legalizing the corner store would be a nice start.

        1. Pedestrianisation in one of my local towns went really well. Park and ride schemes help solve for the rest with hybrid or electric buses.

            1. Yeah, I used to read a lot of his stuff back in the day. It’s not like it’s even revolutionary stuff, you just had to think about things for more than five minutes. It’s like how Cadillac Desert talks about how people in the early 20th century knew that aquifers wouldn’t last maybe a century or so after agriculture moved into the likes of Nevada and New Mexico and California etc. They all knew it was doomed from the start, they just assumed someone would have solved it by now. Magic, I’m guessing.

              No one thought about oil just not existing at affordable prices while we built this house of cards on a foundation of the stuff. What else is new?

      4. bicycle lanes were invented to get bicycles off the roads that motorists thought theirs, cyclists don’t need no stinking bike lanes. We have the right to use the same roads as drivers of cars. By the way, I’ve been riding a bike as my main means of transportation since 2007 (when I started to realize how foolish I was driving a car!)

        1. Superkaos,

          Yes the road should be shared, but when a vehicle collides with a bicycle due to drivers distracted by cell phones or whatever, serious injury can result. I prefer not to ride on busy roads.

          1. In the Netherlands, in lots of places , bike lanes are often separated from car traffic. But then again, it’s really flat and distances are small and generally the weather is pretty mild. Try to bicycle from downtown Scottsdale AZ to downtown Phoenix… It is just not a realistic solution in the US except for very, very local use.

            1. Weekend peak,

              Yes I was forgetting the very hot weather in the South, probably more dangerous than the cold weather up north.

            2. Try to bicycle from downtown Scottsdale AZ to downtown Phoenix
              The problem is that Arizona cities are built by people whose heritage goes back to the cool foggy climes of Northwestern Europe. The brought all their cultural trappings with them, including wide treeless lawns and even golf courses, which make sense in Scotland, but not so much in the desert Southwest.

              The state didn’t get much immigration from the north until air conditioning was invented. Then people rushed in and built a completely inappropriate city, spread out for maximum exposure to the sun. That’s great in Liverpool or Hamburg, not so much in Arizona. As a result they spend all their time huddled indoors in air conditioned rooms with their plush carpets and overstuffed sofas, complaining about how hot it is. The sidewalks are empty and there is practically no street life.

              To live in a place like that, you need to have multistory buildings, and streets narrow enough to cast shadows on each other. That allows you to move around outside, and cuts the distances you need to travel.

              Check out this street scene from Malaga, on the south coast of Spain. It’s hot, but the city is built for the heat, so people can move around freely.

              https://www.google.de/maps/@36.7219283,-4.4194627,3a,75y,266.07h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szwXudwpwlbezSHxCBXzPLQ!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=zwXudwpwlbezSHxCBXzPLQ&cb_client=maps_sv.share&w=900&h=600&yaw=266.07393356849093&pitch=0&thumbfov=90!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205410&entry=ttu

              This is about as close as you get in Scottsdale. Most of the region is much worse.

              https://www.google.de/maps/@33.4983327,-111.9271976,3a,75y,306.42h,82.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siT39aIv1WCm-QVcHh6inFg!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=iT39aIv1WCm-QVcHh6inFg&cb_client=maps_sv.share&w=900&h=600&yaw=306.4242333074484&pitch=7.491533063165576&thumbfov=90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu

              Huge wide public streets accessing extremely modest single story buildings. Lots of direct sun. Built for cars, not for people, because nobody wants to walk more than a few yards in that heat.

              This is just complete insanity:
              https://www.google.de/maps/@33.5000985,-111.926032,3a,75y,205.2h,85.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sY1J_qCR7QsIKbbpoxubLog!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=Y1J_qCR7QsIKbbpoxubLog&cb_client=maps_sv.share&w=900&h=600&yaw=205.19716157567473&pitch=4.834805977456014&thumbfov=90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu

              Americans brought the wrong cultural baggage with them to Arizona. It’s like a bunch of Eskimos built igloos there and spent the rest of their lives grumbling about their houses melting, and demanding federal subsidies to cool them.

            3. Oh yeah, and when the Eskimos finally realize there is no hope of keeping their igloo life style alive in the Arizona desert, they start claiming the sky is falling and the world is coming to an end.

          2. Right, if you wouldn’t let your 8 year old to use the bike lane, it isn’t adequate infrastructure.

            People who think in car terms have a hard time imagining public infrastructure built for people not in a position to drive, whether they are too young, too old, too poor or have disabilities such as night blindness etc.

    1. The U.S empire is crumbling from within. Both candidates are a reflection of the people and the state of the country. Abysmal.

      On the election, Trump will most likely win mostly because of the gross incompetence of the democrats.

      1. Hard to argue with that assessment I. Mike.
        We have a democracy, but it has tremendous mechanism (and legal system) faults.
        And the populous is not up to making adult and well informed decisions.
        Its all so very embarrassing, to put it lightly.
        Good governance is rare in this world.
        We stumble along.

        1. If the American empire goes down, all the complaining about inflation now will look like a drop in the ocean compared the drop of standard of living that will come. The great depression will look like the good old days.

          Like your health, most don’t realize what they have until it’s gone.

          “the populous is not up to making adult and well informed decisions” – agree

          1. Definitely agree. I think its just part of the human condition. We don’t appreciate what we have until it’s gone. And we always want more and are generally unsatisfied.

            These traits seems to be ingrained in our biology.

            Empires falling is also part of life on earth. Nothing lasts forever. Historically empires falling were contained to geographical areas albeit some large areas, but when the collapse of the U.S empire comes to pass, the fallout will be unfathomable.

            1. Yes America is not the first and won’t be the last empire to fall. What makes our predicament unique is humanity has never seen a more advanced, populous, global, interconnected, resource-dependent empire. Our species has never even come close to experiencing anything like the last 100 years. The next 100 years is also going to be full of drama, change, death, war, and many many old geezers whining about how thing were so much better and simpler back in my day.

            2. Both Trump and Biden are obviously suffering from dementia. As were others such as Mitch McConnell and Diane Feinstein. We need a constitutional amendment to ban people older than 65 from holding office, and that includes the Supreme Court. Life is too dynamic to have old corrupt farts ruling the roost.

      2. The EU so called “election” of UvtL et al was definately not a shiny example of democracy either, so there you are.
        Side note, Switzerlands voting system, in general, should be used more in my view.
        Edit: I´m quite a bit dissapointed that the US can´t put better candidates up for the vote, but perhaps that´s the plan…

        1. Probably a reason why so many EU nations are not playing by the established rules and voting for the same parties that have been in and out of the EU parliament. People are likely getting sick in a way the UK did of the institution not addressing issues competently.

      1. Neither of them are. One, the felon, was hurling insults, not insights. The other, the reanimated corpse sundowning, was incoherent.

        I thought the UK had a bad batch of leader candidates, but yeah.

        No Barry Goldwater about?

      2. After rewatching the debate, I didn’t think Biden was as bad as I first thought. I know he sounded weak at the beginning but he completely understood what was going on. He tried to pack to much information into his time to speak and didn’t finish sentences. Trump also didn’t finish a few sentences. Their both to old. Biden is in better condition than FDR in 1944 and he beat Germany in WWII. The American public are more of the problem than the Administration. Nothing last night changed my vote. Kamala Harris can handle the rains and will step in when the time comes. The future of democracy is what matters, not the man. Don’t be distracted.

        1. Huntingtonbeach,

          My vote also is not changed by the debate, but in a close election perceptions matter and it was not a good look for Biden. It was up to him to challenge the obvious lies by Trump, just saying he’s lying or that’s malarkey doesn’t do it, he needed to be specific in more cases of what lie in particular he disputed and specifically correct the record. He was not up to the task and his age showed. For those with questions about whether he was up to the job, their questions were answered in the negative based on last night’s performance.

          1. Dennis,

            All your points are valid and I never thought for a moment you would have changed your vote. Rewatching the debate, one of my thoughts was being 15 years younger than Biden. I couldn’t have done better. Biden did dispute a lot of Trumps lies, but to address the tsunami of lies is impossible. Fifth teen younger Republicans couldn’t combat Trumps lies 8 years ago. Dennis, no one on this website except maybe Nick should be able to understand dealing with incoming attacks and BS than you. I hope you find the time to rewatch it and comment. I’m not saying last night was good. I also think his handlers F’d up. They should have had a mic check before the debate and over prepared him for the tsunami.

            Like MAC says here often, we have no choice but to move forward. We need to make lemonade out of lemons. Democrats need to stop shooting themselves in the foot. Democracy and the future of the free world are at stake.

            One more thing, “malarkey” needs to be removed from his vocabulary.

            1. Huntingtonbeach,

              I also may not have done any better, yes there were a lot of lies, but he just needed to pick one or two and dispute those, in a few cases he did attempt to do so but did not do that well in my view. Seems Trump just spewed the same lies he uses at his rallies, Biden should have been better prepared with facts to counteract the lies, I agree he did not seem well prepared. I agree malarkey is not great, but it is a part of his folksy charm. Malarkey needs to be followed with specific examples of why Trump’s statements are lies.

              I only watched the first hour, figured it would not get much better, will probably not watch again, we just need to move forward.

            2. My dog could easily have done better. Biden was incoherent. Let’s not mince words here. Biden is unfit to hold office. Trump is also of course but that matters little. In fact the only conceivable worse outcome would be if JFK jr wins.

              People. Wake up. Reagan was 73 when he was re-elected in 1984. His senility was obvious the last two or three years of office. Biden and Trump are running with their dementia on full display. Trump confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi. Last night Biden confused Medicare with…the war in Ukraine? I couldn’t even understand what he was talking about. Trump let him off easy… because he’s also senile. Both of these men are obvious unfit to hold office. Period.

            3. Well release the hound

              There’s a spare in the trunk and these tires have been on the car for a long time before this trip started. Now you want to make a change ? We’re only 130 miles from our destination. Ya we hit that 4×4 in the road, but we’re still traveling at 70mph and the tires are inflated.

              I don’t really care who becomes president as long as it’s a Dem and not Trump.

              Lassie, go get help and a new set of Goodyear 235/55R20’s

        2. I’m sorry, but there was nothing good about Biden’s performance here. Say what you will of Trump’s character, out of the two contenders, he was the only coherent voice there. The Dems are in full panic now, with most of the dissent coming from otherwise solid Biden cheerleaders up until literally last night.

          It’s over. They either punch his ticket, or they accept the loss that is inevitable now. If they change candidate, they might be in with a chance, however slim.

          This total disconnect from reality led to shock that Hilary lost. They can’t be that boneheaded to still think Orange Man Bad is going to sway people after what transpired in that “debate”.

          1. I don’t know man Trump has several things working against him. Mainly, I think the original Trump fervor has worn off. Also I think many people in the alt-right subconsciously realize that the presidency is not a good vehicle for a fascist right wing uprising (President of the United States is too much of a normie job). And finally, I think a lot of evangelical Christians have figured out that Trump is not the second coming of christ they hoped he was. It took them a while, but they finally put the pieces together and realized that Trump is not Jesus. A bunch of Christians still will vote for him but I think more Christians will sit this election out.

            My prediction is Biden will win.

          2. Yeah, Biden is old. He didn’t present well. He talked too quietly and too quickly. Read the transcript and it is clear that both men were coherent, but only one was adherent to the truth. I’m much more concerned that Trump would be competent to execute his second term agenda than I am that Biden would not be competent to execute his.

            https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/politics/read-biden-trump-debate-rush-transcript/index.html

            We had a full term of President Trump, and we’ve had nearly a full term of President Biden. There should be no ambiguity in anyone’s mind about the relative integrity and competency of these two men. Biden isn’t charismatic, and not particularly inspiring. Trump, for some, is. What he inspires is disturbing.

            1. Thing is, Biden used to be those things. Some of the much younger Democrats still tooting his horn probably don’t even have a memory of what he was like as veep with Obama, let alone the ’80s.

              I don’t like the guy, personally, but as a third party observer, I would not vote for the guy or the party that decided to run the guy who clearly isn’t going to make another term even if he did win my vote.

              There should be a law about cognitive impairment being tested for, or an age limit for members of the executive. It’s damning how many US, and for that matter Western, politicians are well over 60.

              Not that this is a cry for more AOCs in the world.

            2. Kleiber, personally I don’t like a liar, sex offender, racist, narcissist, conman, felon and want to be fascist dictator or what most people would call just plain evil. I can guaranty you Biden’s actuarially life expectancy is longer than the obese Trump. Maybe you just like a loud mouth fat guy over an empathic gentleman. That seems about right.

              “How say you to the first count of the indictment, charging Donald J. Trump with the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree, guilty or not guilty?” the clerk asked.

              “Guilty,” the foreperson responded, repeating the answer 33 more times.

              When will Trump be sentenced?

              Shortly after the verdict was handed down, Merchan, the judge, set Trump’s sentencing date for July 11, just days before the start of the Republican National Convention.

              **********

              Fact checks were prevalent during and after the Biden-Trump debate — but not for real-time viewers

              The New York Times chronicled 20 false statements by Trump, with another 21 it said were either misleading, lacked context or lacked evidence. Its fact check pointed out no false statements by Biden, with 11 meeting the other characterizations. The Associated Press corrected 11 statements by Trump, four by Biden.

              The Washington Post wrote that Trump “confidently relied on false assertions that have been debunked repeatedly” while Biden “stretched the truth occasionally.”

              Scaramucci: Trump ’told a lie every 100 seconds” during debate

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YCPRB8f3eA

            3. Huntingtonbeach,

              Biden is aiding and abetting a genocide in Gaza. I’ll take the fat narcissist who pulled out of a warring country than the guy who fans the flames of it elsewhere, thanks. I know Americans famously hate brown people, but most people I know in Europe kinda hate you guys for funding neo Nazis in Ukraine and fascists like Bibi. Just saying.

              Ideally, none of the above since the US can’t actually produce leaders anymore, just failsons and daughters who feel it’s their time to inherit the empire in its death throes.

              So when Biden fails to win the election, I guess your answer isn’t going to be “this is democracy in action”, but “Russia stole the election” or something. Will be funny to see either way.

              Of course the people not voting Dem are wrong, as you said above. You believe in one man, one vote. You’re the man, and you have the vote. Love electorialism’s death being bandied about like a badge of pride by people like you who can’t read the room.

              https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

              Is looking good for Biden’s health, I can say that much. He’s a winner at beating most every other president on a single term to the lowest approval rating.

            4. Kleiber, Western Europe leaders right now are shiting their pants on the fear that Trump gets elected and hands Ukraine over to Putin. Bibi is praying Trump gets elected so he can turn his open air prison into a genocide and steal the land. You seem very confused on the facts.

              It was the British who pulled out of Palestine after WWII and handed the mess over to the Americans. It’s the Americans who are the reason you don’t speak German in a workcamp today and the only reason you might not speak Russian or dead tomorrow. It’s Trumps racist Republican party who don’t like brown people and using it to play the fascist race card. And it’s people like you who like to make general racist comments to put down women and people of color.

              “Not that this is a cry for more AOCs in the world.”

              Biden makes you look like an idiot when it comes to facts and knowledge. Your just a tool for the fascist, Speading your fear of the future everyday here. Man up.

            5. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/exclusive-us-has-sent-israel-thousands-of-2000-pound-bombs-since-oct-7/ar-BB1p5nxC

              You’re telling me Biden just missed that he’s sent more ordnance to Israel that can only ever be used for wholesale destruction of the most populated land strip on the planet? Is he stupid or malicious?

              Genuine question: is Biden aiding Bibi voluntarily or is he so senile he doesn’t realise his own administration is aiding the IDF murder machine behind his back? You can’t have it both ways. And anyway, I have C-SPAN footage from the ’80s showing what an AIPAC ghoul he was back then. He’s a neocon warhawk, but because he’s a blue one, that’s okay. I remember when people were against war on the blue side, back when Dubya “Fool me… fool me once… won’t get fooled again” Bush was bringing managed democracy to all the A-rabs for the twentieth time and it going really well.

              As for Ukraine, what makes you think the Donbas has any interest being part of greater Ukraine that is now being bled dry by the IMF financially, and of people by the US getting Z Man to keep feeding men (and now women) into a hopeless meat grinder?

              Here’s some sobering thoughts from the Trump loving Grauniad.

              https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/29/i-am-not-made-for-war-the-men-fleeing-ukraine-to-evade-conscription

              Sounds like things are going well in the nation that was already in demographic collapse, so I’m sure throwing their working age male populace into an unwinnable war will pay dividends.

              Zelenskyy, himself, just came out this week saying they have masses of casualties and cannot sustain this war many more months, needing a peace agreement to occur soonish. A thing that, had it not been for Boris fucking Johnson, would have happened way back in March of 2022 when Ukraine was decisively owning Russia and Putin had massively underestimated the tenacity of the AFU and the commitment the West had to fighting for every inch of land. If peace was the goal, the US fucked it so badly here, it’s amazing. I’ve got another theory: maybe it was to just bleed and pin down a geopolitical rival in a fruitless war via a proxy whose people are irrelevant to the US elite. Y’know, real good guy stuff, not like what the perfidious RuZZians would do.

              Fast forward over two years and, well, let’s just say it ain’t going so well for Ukraine.

              The idea that the Orange Blob getting in will be bad for America and Europe, when the US blew up Nordstream and caused massive price inflation for energy to the continent, is currently engaged in a hopeless war in the Red Sea that is causing shipping rates to explode again as they did during COVID, and is also champing at the bit to have a war with China, makes me think you’re not a serious person.

              In case this isn’t blindingly obvious from all my previous posting, since it seems some on here are terminally ideology blinded and/or suffer bad reading comprehension, I DO NOT LIKE DONALD J. DRUMPF. I am talking about him getting in, with a landslide maybe, because Biden has shat the bed (probably literally as well as figuratively now). As in 2016, your, and various other voices, going on about how you MUST vote for Biden because Trump is the Antichrist, is going to go about as well as it did for the last of the Clinton dynasty’s attempts at gaining office.

              Enjoy your loss in November. I’m sure if you berate the MAGAtards a little more, you’ll win them to your side.

            6. It’s the Americans who are the reason you don’t speak German in a workcamp today and the only reason you might not speak Russian or dead tomorrow. It’s Trumps racist Republican party who don’t like brown people and using it to play the fascist race card. And it’s people like you who like to make general racist comments to put down women and people of color.

              Oh, go fuck yourself.

              Firstly, it was the Russians that stopped me from learning German involuntarily (I learnt it for GCSE when I was 14 anyway). The Americans did NOT break the Nazi war machine. I hate to tell it to you, sweetheart, but Hollywood isn’t real. Open a history book sometime and see just how many Russians died to enable YOUR liberty. And, no, lend-lease was not the reason either, before you spout “Well, ackshually America saved Russia…” Go and have a look at Soviet actions of the Red Army and materiel output before a single GM truck or Springfield rifle got to shore.

              But of course, you absolutely cannot grok this fact, because it is ideologically at odds with the fact that you have deemed Russia always and forever evil, because it is the current enemy of the the imperial core.

              I bet you didn’t even know that the only nation out of the US and Russia that has ever invaded the other, is the US. They don’t teach that, the Arkhangelsk landings, in school, but I’m sure you’d be the first to point out the belligerence of the nation you know fuck all about. You’re a model pawn of the liberal establishment, like all good Americans these days it seems.

              And for a country that supposedly fought fascism, you sure took in a fuckton of Nazis in Operation Paperclip. Remember when Canada gave a standing ovation to an SS Galicia officer only last year? I fucking do, and as someone who lost family to the Nazi war machine, let me give another fuck you for belittling their fight with your macho American masturbation.

              Absolute ignoramus. May your whole worldview implode with you in it like a metaphorical billionaire submarine.

            7. Kleiber, you just generate hate from your ignorant assumptions. My uncle gave his life on a British runway defending the islands freedom on December 27, 1944.

              Personally, I think your just a Russian troll playing the fear and hate card.

            8. And I think you’re an idiot who literally cannot comprehend my posts, since you never address anything raised, just move straight to the ad hominem and random non-sequiturs. I’d ask you to back up your mentions of being a paid troll or promoting hate, but you’d only evade it again or realise that of the two of us, I’m the only one talking about peace and reconciliation. You’re clearly a CIA glowy, or really invested in perpetuating US imperialism, so why argue?

              But sure. Russian troll. Gotta be. Just like Trump and anyone who would vote for him, because that’s the only logical explanation for people not aligning with my thought process, he thinks moronishly.

              Anyway, just generally cute you think whoever you vote for changes anything, as we’ve all long established the system runs itself and the frontman is irrelevant. Your options are two flavours of neoliberalism with a penchant for empire upholding. Choose wisely, comrade. Whoops, almost let it slip. I mean, choose wisely, dude.

              EDIT: For anyone wondering about misinformation, I definitely recommend reading this New Yorker piece on factual and symbolic beliefs.

              https://archive.ph/ZZT0W

            9. The Russian’s were perfectly fine making a deal in 39 with the Nazi’s and invading Poland. Taking half until the Nazi’s attacked them. Then Stalin keep asking the West to start their land war before they were ready for relief.

              In 1991 the Russian empire collapsed(your favorite fear word) and Ukraine became an independent state. Putin has been trying to put the empire back together for the last 25 years. He is willing to kill millions of Ukrainians to do it. There is no peace handing over Ukraine to him. He will not stop.

              Your right, the West has Putin pinned down in a war he started and waves around nuclear threats hoping for a Trump victory(thank you Biden). Nothing would be finer than Russia bleeding to death. They have nuclear missile pointed at me. He can pull back to the pre Crimea invasion lines of Feburary 20, 2014 and end this Russia demise. No one wins a nuclear war, so this is how it has to be played out.

              Grow some balls and don’t cower to the bully.

            10. An American afraid of Russia for dumb fearmongering reasons again. Remind me, which nation has started the most wars and invaded the most nations in the last 50 years?

              Once more again, just ignore my points as you will.

              https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324505622_Fiasco_The_Anglo-Franco-Soviet_Alliance_That_Never_Was_and_the_Unpublished_British_White_Paper_1939-1940

              In sequence:

              1. Russia actively, aggressively sought cooperation for the better part of five years. They were shunned up until 1938.
              2. British public, Westminster officials, and various Lords pressured Chamberlain into humoring Soviet alliance proposals.
              3. Chamberlain, being an odious piece of shit, proceeded to sabotage these talks as often as possible, in as many ways as possible. Even still, the USSR attempted negotiations for nearly two years and across two diplomatic careers.
              4. Litvinov proposes a security conference; it is shot down by the Great Britain.
              5. France, at this point in time, is completely subservient to British desires in the realm of geopolitics.
              6. Chamberlain fails to suppress a proposal from the Foreign Office; a four-way security guarantee between Great Britain, France, the USSR, and Poland. Britain accepts by default, France accepts, the USSR accepts, the grim spectre of Peace is casting its shadow over the periphery….Poland refuses. Chamberlain would point to Poland’s hostility for the remainder of the farce.
              7. France starts to panic, and becomes open to good-faith negotiation. Litvinov takes this opportunity to propose a tripartite; Great Britain, France, and the USSR would engage in a security guarantee, not just for themselves, but for the independence of every European state. With Poland out of the way, there is no aggressive rump state to bail Chamberlain out.
              8. Chamberlain continues to stall, delay, and accuse the USSR of duplicity, he has no intention of agreeing to this proposal.
              9. With negotiations frozen, France nervously tries to keep the USSR’s attention by devising a plan less ammenable to USSR security; the Tripartite plan, but without security guarantees for the USSR. The USSR, unimpressed (if not insulted) humors the proposal if France can get Great Britain on board. They cannot.
              10. Litvinov is fired, replaced with Molotov. He does not have Litvinov’s patience for Western antics and tomfoolery. He humors them briefly, and when it is clear that they are still acting like clowns abandons the pursuit. Germany is primed to invade Poland, action is to be taken to secure the USSR.
              11. Within a mere three weeks Germany irons out a peace agreement, showing exactly how long something like this should reasonably take.

              There were three, three! plans that France and Great Britain could have taken to deter a second world war. At every step the british fucked everything up. Special kudos to Poland, for assuming that the leopard would never go for their face.

              I’ve honestly had some past sympathy for Chamberlain; I’m receptive to the idea that appeasement bought Britain vital time to fortify (akin to how Molotov-Ribbentrop bought the USSR time to industrialize and establish defensive lines) and that his legacy might deserve a second review. These documents instead show that he was a self-confident fuckup, more interested in anticommunism than in avoiding war.

              And I guarantee that not a single person reading or hate-reading this thread was taught any of this in school. As far as state-approved history goes, Chamberlain wrongly appeased Hitler, then Stalin randomly teamed up with Hitler to create a Legion of Doom, to which they bissected the entirely innocent (and definitely had no involvement in destroying Czech nor in preventing peace) Poland. Something, something, second front, something, something, Americans do a D-Day.

            11. Also, you conveniently forget the Munich Pact when talking about why Stalin took rapprochement with Nazi Germany.

              Gee, if only Westoids weren’t so blinkered in their hatred of communism, maybe Nazi Germany might never have done a world war. You’re a person who uses the word fascism and has no idea what it means. You just know that Trump is one of them and that means bad things. I sure hope you don’t read up on your nation’s history at any point. Or indeed, the UK’s move to fascism with Mosley et al.

              Here, educate yourself: https://ia600300.us.archive.org/30/items/the-ted-k-archive-texts-backup-april-2023/u/ue/umberto-eco-ur-fascism.pdf

              Go watch The Remains Of The Day if you want to see how badly the Anglo nations really wanted to suck Hitler’s dick rather than fight him if it meant keeping the USSR down and out.

              Special bonus treat: https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/how-fascism-serves-capitalism/

              Love American industry like Ford and IBM still selling to Nazi Germany during the war.

  3. Bad news for regulation
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-power-grab-overturns-40-year-precedent-in-huge-win-for-corporations/ar-BB1p4dPH?ocid=BingNewsSerp#comments

    “In Chevron, the Supreme Court crafted a doctrine that granted the federal government broad deference to enact regulations without judicial interference. It effectively stated that agencies had the power to enact regulations without having to wait for the courts to weigh in, unless the regulation was an unreasonable interpretation of the underlying law enacted by Congress that delegated regulatory authority to that agency.

    The court’s new doctrine provides significantly less deference to agencies, while granting judges more power to strike down regulations if the court determines that Congress did not explicitly delegate authority to enact the specific regulation in question. The decision is a product of the changing ideological and partisan makeup of the courts and the executive branch.”

    1. Don’t forget, bribery is okay now if you call it a “gratuity”.

  4. I guess possibly a friendly reminder of 2011 or so, a refreshing blast from the past one might say. But here we are, ELM is still in effect as far as I can see, albeit slightly altered, we have EVs abound now, PV is rather cheap but in general we are on the same trajectory as before.
    (To new readers, being first was a thing at most sites, such as JHKs and Denningers, been a while…At TOD not so much, thanks to Leanan)
    But I think I still wants to see how the movie ends.

    1. R made an anti-Semitic remark on the oil thread and needs to be banned

          1. A couple of points. Firstly, I’d be wary of using The Daily Mail for anything constructive. You basically used Fox News for papers as a source, and while it is a fallacy to attack the messenger, please be aware that the DM is a well known conservative rag of an outlet.

            That being said, the NKVD purges were bad. There is no denying this. The revolution had various dissenters and external enemies (I already mentioned the US, UK and France invading Russia before these purges to stop a communist revolution forming effective government) to which extreme force and show trials were performed. When the USSR collapsed and these archives were opened up, we saw about half a million people (it was NOT tens of millions) were denounced, imprisoned and executed between the ‘30s and early ‘50s. That is a dark matter, regardless of who did it. But what you’re looking at here is more akin to the American Revolution than some kind of random act of violence and repression.

            However, the purges were primarily at the top of society and impacted barely a percentage of the main population. In Sheila Fitzpatrick’s Everyday Stalinism, she goes on about how the population was generally supportive of the Kremlin leadership for all the advances (and they were major) in everyday life from agriculture to mechanisation in the workplace to literacy rates. The author is also a liberal, not a leftist in any way, so it’s a curious outsider assessment. The purging of intelligentsia and various previously committed to government people meant that the working class could rise to replace an outdated and stagnant leadership and have a role to play in shaping the country, something that never before had happened. It was populist in movement, not something seen as done at the whims of a single Trumpian dictator.

            I find it funny, though, when I hear about the gulags which were primarily about rehabilitation and working the land, when America has literally the world’s biggest incarcerated population doing probably less well for themselves than the Soviets did in the 1930s. And certainly no one is addressing the endemic decline that led to this state of affairs. The USSR had many missteps, but they definitely can’t be accused of not uplifting millions of people from agrarian to industrial living. Otherwise, does how America treat its prisoners basically undermine the entire American society? I would say no.

            I would say it doesn’t discredit the political entity of the USSR any more than the Reign of Terror did the French Revolution or any other violent uprising to remove a decadent, ineffective and non-progressive governing structure. Every nation gets there by revolution in the end, mine included and, of course, the 13 Colonies got their freedom off my nation’s tyrannical treatment of the people it deemed subjects not worthy of having a voice.

            Also, Churchill was wrong and a fucking tyrant himself given his history. Sure, Battle of Britain and great speeches. Horrible person, still.

            https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study

            If that had been Stalin, would the tune be different?

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/05/08/dont-forget-how-the-soviet-union-saved-the-world-from-hitler/

  5. @ HIDEAWAY

    In the last thread you stated:

    “Take any large project anywhere near you, that’s taken many years to build and I’ll bet the cost has blown out and most people blame regulations or something like that for the increased costs. The Vogtle reactors in the US, or Hinkley in the UK, or a new giant mine, or hospital or railway station complex, or large Airport, etc, etc.

    They all end up costing way more than was ever planned for and the real reason is the falling EROEI of all energy, increased cost of specialist equipment and expertise.”

    This is simply not true. I can speak from study of other projects/programs as well as personal experience in development, delivery and observation of all phases of individual projects up to $2B+ and annual programs of hundreds of projects totalling $2B+/yr.

    There are a large range of factors which play into cost, scope, schedule and quality of delivery of large physical infrastructure projects. While I would agree that EROI is almost certain to have a cumulative impact over time, significant cost increases relative to some point in delivery on any individual project with a time frame of perhaps 2-10 years are largely driven by other factors. For example, think about variations in the quality and extent of preliminary engineering, levels of competition for construction or broader economic impacts.

    To get a single factor sense of these issues and why project cost increases are not necessarily consistently linked to EROI, take a look at nationwide aggregate cost trends in the US heavy highway sector in the past two decades (link below). 19%/yr cost increase over the last 3 years with prior periods of flat or even declining costs. There is no solid, consistent correlation with EROI trends or even energy costs within this particular time horizon.

    https://explore.dot.gov/views/NHIInflationDashboard/NHCCI_1?%3Aiid=1&%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&%3Adisplay_count=n&%3AshowVizHome=n&%3Aorigin=viz_share_link

    1. T Hill, I did mention projects that take many years to build, like Hinkley PC or Vogtle or I could add Snowy hydro 2 scheme, plus I know of many large mining projects that blow out in costs, while taking years to build.

      I get error messages when I try to open the link you provided.

      You mention “other factors” which I would also contend were related to EROEI falling and people just not able to follow how energy constraints are working in the background of everything we do. Economies run on energy not just money.

      On your next post about fusion, have a look at the energy inputs already without any success so far. Let’s assume ITER is wildly successful, can easily return the 500MW with the 50MW power input and does it by 2035.

      ‘They’, EU Automic Energy Commission or whoever, then decide to build the demo power plant of 750MW. Is this going to take another 30+ years to build? Will it also suffer cost blowouts? Way too late to be of use, plus the materials needed to build it have a massive energy cost of which most is provided by fossil fuels. Plus most of the processes and materials totally rely upon fossil fuel products, not just the energy.

      Speaking of large long term projects and cost blowouts, ITER was originally scheduled to cost 5B Euro to build, so far they have spent ….
      “By extrapolation, the total ITER cost during that period would be €41 billion if the entire project were to be undertaken in the EU. The US Department of Energy in 2018 estimated ITER’s cost would be $65 billion if all the work were to be done in the US.”
      From..
      https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/76/8/18/2903082/ITER-appears-unstoppable-despite-recent

      In other words fusion still looks to be 30 years away just like it’s been for many decades and is part of the fairy tales about the continuation of modern civilization once fossil fuels production declines massively.

      People just don’t seem to understand that modern civilization was only ever possible because of long term geologic processes that concentrated many minerals, metals and organic compounds in the Earth’s crust, which humanity has used to create our civilizations.

      We are effectively dispersing all these natural materials right across the surface of the planet over time, in much lower concentrations. We do it by using the organic concentrated materials, refine them, then dissipate the energy collecting the minerals and metals, which are converted into ‘products’, which all end up as waste dispersed back into the environment, no matter how much ‘recycling’ we try to do (also reliant upon fossil fuels and FF products).

      As the energy cost of producing the energy we need keeps rising, because we use lower grade fossil fuels and ores, it effects every aspect of modernity mostly hidden. all sorts of ‘other costs’ can be traced back to energy and fossil fuel products.

      1. HIDEAWAY,

        Google FHWA National Highway Construction Cost index for the link that didn’t work for you.

        Your original post references a series of routine infrastructure projects, and I would continue to maintain that you are simply wrong to link EROEI to cost increases with almost all single projects of this nature.

        And no, the other factors I mentioned as dominating cost busts do not include EROEI impacts.

        You just now offered up 2 nuclear plant projects and a pumped hydro facility whose core is a 27km tunnel. Two of these three projects are certainly impacted by the massive inflationary spike in construction costs since 2020 I referenced above. Unknown or variable subsurface conditions are one of the other factors I referred to but did not specify. For example, I recall a chemical plant expansion I worked along the Mississipi where identical, full-scale pile load tests 100+/- ft away from each other had results that varied by a factor of 2. It is not surprising that a project whose core scope is a 27km long tunnel (Snowy hydro 2) would see cost variability. You’re not talking about a factory line widget. I’ll acknowledge that I’ve never worked on a nuclear power plant myself and have only very limited knowledge of their unique issues, so cannot comment as well about them.

        ITER is a research project. Nothing like your original post and a complete tangent.

        Note that I’m not commenting pro/con on what seems to be a common thread in your posts about sustainability.

        Yes, the cost of infrastructure is certainly linked to energy. No, cost busts on any individual project are almost never going to be a factor of EROEI trends as you asserted. Yes, EROEI trends over long time periods will likely change the real cost of infrastructure construction for the exact same deliverable. Say 1950 vs 2050. That is a different point. At the same time, the people involved in such work will also be walking into work every day looking for a way to cut those costs down, improve reliability, mitigate environmental impacts, improve life spans, …,

        I’ll repeat OFMs point. Giving up is not an option for some of us.

        1. Your highway cost index has risen from a reference point of 1 to 1.8 in 20 years…

          T Hill …. “Yes, the cost of infrastructure is certainly linked to energy.”

          It’s the cost of everything that’s linked to energy and falling EROEI makes the relative cost of energy intensive projects much higher than first assumed, which is clearly shown on large multi year projects, especially the ones that take the longest. Background energy cost is always going up as we deplete the easy to access energy.

          T Hill … ” Giving up is not an option for some of us.” Who ever said anything about ‘giving up’?

          Reality hits whether you are ready for it or not. a persons belief in something doesn’t change the reality of the situation. We’ve had a massive build out of renewables always gaining in size for a couple of decades. It’s all on top of all the other industrial production, that still happens, all mined, transported, processed using fossil fuels with declining grades.

          The physics tells you it’s not possible to continue for the long term if you are prepared to do the calculations, which most people are not prepared to do. Instead they like to find comfort in some research papers, that have artificial boundaries, so never consider all relevant details, to put their own minds at ease.

          Knowing the truth of the situation has nothing to do with giving up. The world and our future just is. Any individual can choose to believe in whatever they want, but it wont change the overall situation at all.
          An individual can make decisions to put themselves and loved ones in a slightly better position by researching the future and knowing what’s coming, and preparing the best they can, or just ignore it and let the future happen to themselves.

          Individual companies that are involved in heavy industry are a clear sign of the future, as in the direction they are heading or not heading.
          The mere fact none are choosing to go off grid and produce their own power with solar, wind and batteries, while forgoing all the extra grid connection fees, is a very clear message to anyone listening. It’s obviously not competitive to do so, which destroys the myth that solar, wind and batteries are ‘cheaper’, everywhere…

          The fact that only 15-20% at most of humanity enjoys the level of modernity we do in the west, and we are already running into planetary environmental limits, also clearly shows it’s not possible for all. If it’s only possible for a small percentage of population now, then what happens with falling fossil fuel availability and declining ore grades??

          I’m just a messenger that’s done the research over decades, trying to get people to do their own research and calculations, and not rely upon ‘nice’ stories that are written to calm you, but have no basis in reality.

          1. Even having the global population consume on average what a frugal European does today would absolutely knacker this planet in no time flat. When you consider things like China burning more coal in the last decade or so than all the British Empire did during its existence, you really cotton on to the power of exponentials.

            Anyway, it’s academic. The climate changing at the rate it is now will put brakes on any transition. We talk about an epic peak oil collapse or other Mad Max scenario happening, when in all likelihood we’ll get done in by a simple famine happening globally in the next decade or so. We won’t even need the grid to die from a hypercane or too many EVs or mass influx of immigrants, it will just be “whoops, ran out of food”.

            The movie Interstellar, minus the magical ending.

  6. @DENNIS

    I’ve seen a number of posts where you comment about the potential to offset fossil fuel demand (and liquids in particular) with factors such as:

    1. Mid century population peak and decline
    2. Electrification of everything, with an emphasis on the transport sector and EVs.
    3. Buildout of solar/wind in support of electrification of everything
    4. Efficiency gains associated with electric transition as we avoid the waste energy implicit in ICEs and other similar transfers of FF energy into useful work.

    I take your comments as generally optimistic about the potential here and apologize if that doesn’t capture the nuance of your perspective.

    I think I understand your assumptions about population peak and decline and find this to be a compelling argument. I’m not as clear about how the rest of these topics are likely to play out this century, but do see some hope. I do find it hard to dispute Tom Murphys more negative perspective on sustainability when he expands the timeframe to hundreds of years or more. I also agree with OFM in that giving up is not an option.

    Could you repeat your own models for the trends noted below an/or cite the sources you rely on for forecasts in these areas?
    A. EV adoption rate globally and associated reduction in liquid fuel demand over time.
    B. Wind/Solar capacity buildout rates globally, including grid/connection capacity constraints.
    C. Electric storage buildout rates via batteries, pumped hydro or other approaches?
    D. Potential material resource constraints on A, B & C.

    The one other question I’d ask you (or anyone) is if anyone has a sense of the reality of fusion making a real impact.

    Thanks in advance if you find the time to comment on any of these.

    1. T Hill,

      I expect ICEVs will be replaced by 2050 and fall to half the current level by 2037. The world reaches 100% plugin sales by 2033.

      For electric power, I assume for non-fossil fuel power, only wind and solar output grow in the future. All electric power is non-fossil fuel by 2037.

      I do not have an estimate of grid upgrades or material needs. Kind of a large ask at the World level. The wind and solar exponential growth rates for World solar and wind output from 2018 to 2023 are assumed to continue until 2037 and World electric power growth from 2018 to 2023 is also assumed to continue until 2037.

      I would use Rethinkx estimates of 5 times average load for wind and solar capacity needed and battery and other storage at about 50 hours for least cost system.

      https://www.rethinkx.com/energy#energy-download

      There are many different battery chemistries that are possible, I doubt that material constraints cannot be overcome with technology, substitution(fiber optic cable or aluminum to replace copper for example), and recycling.

      1. Dennis, could you add information on this ….” 5 times average load for wind and solar capacity needed”.

        Say a particular grid has an average of 20GW power supply over 24 hours/365 days, or is using 175TWh/yr, what are you talking about as 5 times average load? 100GW of total wind and solar capacity?

        1. Hideaway,

          Yes, in the US we have about 2.5 times fossil fuel electric power capacity relative to average net generation for fossil fuel (2023 annual averages). Somewhere between 3 and 5 times capacity from wind and solar relative to average power load, lower capacity (3x) would require higher levels of backup and higher capacity (5x) would require lower levels of backup. Relative prices of backup power and capacity in the future will determine the lowest cost system for the World. The specific optimum levels will vary from location to location.

            1. OK, 5 times peak load and 50 hours of batteries at peak load. So lets do some calculations on the recent period where we had no wind and cloudy conditions under a high pressure system for a week in the state of Victoria Australia…

              Firstly because solar output was only 10% of capacity, and assuming the grid has 50% solar and 50% wind, the total solar installation would have been 21.25GW (5 times peak of 8.5GW = 42.5GW divided equally), and had an output of 2.5GW into a system using an average of 7GW or 168GWh/d. Being the depths of Winter there is only 6 hours at best of even this 25% of production.

              The batteries would be flat in 2.5 days, with no way to restart the system for the rest of the week, leaving consumers in the dark without heating and flat batteries in their EVs… So little is not going to work!!

              Batteries for 50 hours at 8.5GW = 425,GWh …. LOL do I need to go any further? At just $400/KWh installed this amount of batteries would cost $170B and last 10 years if lucky..
              As there are 2.1M customers on the grid, it would cost each customer an extra $8,095/yr just for the batteries, with ZERO allowance for any operating and maintenance costs.

              In addition the state has been using around 220,000TWh of gas recently (mostly heating), when industry has been asked to close because of gas shortages!! Plus the future would require EVs to also be added to load raising peak consumption and therefore just the battery cost by a massive amount…

              It’s not close to feasible!! Do you really think solar, wind and batteries are going to get cheaper as fossil fuel prices they rely upon to be made get more expensive, even when we had the example in 2021-2 of these renewables getting more expensive when fossil fuel prices rose?? (from IEA).

              Rethinkx calculations are in La La land of fairy tales. It doesn’t work in a state that has very little industry left as most of it’s been offshored. Imagine how much energy would be required if we had lots industry as well, and the shear disruptions every time there was a cloudy windless period…
              Here is an easy calculation to do… 5 times zero wind = 0, 10 times zero wind = 0.

              Simon Michaux’s numbers of weeks worth of batteries for taking excess in summer to winter is closer to reality of what’s needed, but battery costs would have to be only 2-5% of what they currently, which is never going to happen, because of the energy needed to mine all the materials!!

            2. Hideaway,

              Assuming 50% wind and 50% solar probably not a good assumption as solar costs are falling more rapidly, the analysis by Rethinkx looked specifically at 3 regions in the US, an analysis of other locations would yield different results. Does Victoria’s grid connect with other states? Was it cloudy with no wind over the entire continent? Over time the 220000 TWh of gas for heating could be replaced with heat pumps which would require about one third the energy of a gas boiler or furnace. Also there is the potential for hydro, pumped hydro, nuclear, geothermal, biofuel, or waste burning to be used as backup, fossil fuel with CCS, synthetic natural gas, hydrogen or vehicle to grid are other possibilities as is demand pricing.

            3. Dennis, I’ve been through this in prior threads, the best renewable resource is sunshine in outback Queensland which is partly connected to the grid. The interstate connectors are 1GW here and 500MW in a couple of places, but South Australia also had a dearth of wind during this period.

              The cost of building enough transmission capacity for even 2000km would be immense, but it still wouldn’t have solved the night time problem…

              The govt, with all their expert consultants, is looking to increase wind energy if anything as they already have a problem of too much solar during the day in summer, so if the mix had been 60% wind, 40% solar, the problem would have been worse.

              The Kimberley coast 4,000 km away probably had a good wind resource at night during our renewable drought week, but it is a waste of resources to build enough power transmission for probably over 10-15GW (not just Victoria in renewable drought), for a small percentage of the time use.
              What guarantee is there that next renewable drought power would be produced in the right area to send this power across the continent?? None, zip, nada.

              The clearly biggest issue is the battery cost for just the 50 hours that would have been nowhere near adequate. Over $8,000 each per annum for EVERY customer, means not even close to possible.

              To realistically cover major outages that can hit every part of the grid, large transmission lines need to be built criss crossing the country with overbuilt renewables at all places, to provide power in others when necessary, plus lots of batteries. Most of the time most of the overbuild would sit idle, but still need to be replaced at 10 years for batteries, 20 years for wind turbines and 25 years for solar if lucky (based upon so much solar built 10-15 years ago having major issues and being replaced!!).

              Even those inadequate Rethinkx numbers, are way beyond what can be afforded by any grid, before we add a lot more current fossil fuel uses to the electricity grid (EVs household heating and cooking etc). The material requirement for it all is immense with most standing idle, most of the time but still suffering from entropy!!

              The other variable that no-one in the renewable industry has considered is the rapidly changing climate due to the burning of all the fossil fuels and land clearing etc across the world. Stronger storms more frequently are already starting to play havoc on renewable infrastructure, but the biggest impact will be on wind turbines in areas where the wind resource changes/lowers, or solar in an area that gets more cloudy throughout the year. These changes are chaotic and we are already seeing many instances of production well below predicted capacity factor.

              It’s not affordable unless the models include some fantastical improvements in costs, that is only backed up by making irrelevant assumptions like future price decreases will be just like the past, whereas those past cost reductions were all about getting to economies of scale, which we’ve reached.
              No credible source is forecasting cheaper materials as inputs as all the ore grades get lower. The input prices can only go one way when the mining, processing and manufacture all depend upon depleting fossil fuels.

      2. Dennis,
        “I expect ICEVs will be replaced by 2050 and fall to half the current level by 2037. The world reaches 100% plugin sales by 2033.

        For electric power, I assume for non-fossil fuel power, only wind and solar output grow in the future. All electric power is non-fossil fuel by 2037.”

        Really, how about the consumption on P28 ans P29 of the EI Statistical Review 2024
        You have ben rather quiet on these numbers.

        NA gasoline – 9364 + 4.7%
        jet 1909 + 6.8%
        EU gasoline 1611 + 4.3%
        jet 1454 +11.7%
        China gasoline 3391 +12.3%
        jet 828 +74%
        diesel 3787 +12.4%
        India gasoline 734 + 4.7%
        jet 184 +12.4%
        diesel 1826 +4.9%

        Well that does not bode well for any reduction on oil demand any time soon. You must have been on the Hopium again. I will wager that ICEV’s will have barely declined by 2033 and that 100% EV’s by 2037 will be wishful thinking. EU sales of EV’s have stalled at about 12% and only because of tax breaks for company cars.
        Private buyers of EV’s are scarce and getting scarcer. Estimates are that of EV owners only 30% would buy one again, due to high cost and abysmal range. Many report the range as being 50% of that claimed. That sounds about right to me. No -one wants a used iPad on wheels, so used EV’s are a tough sell.
        Sorry to prick you bubble.

        1. That McKinsey study is two years old and two years in EV development is a long time. I guess you have not been looking at the web site i linked to the other day (https://carnewschina.com/). Well here’s another one, https://cnevpost.com/. The news on EVs is coming out of China fast and furious. The Chinese are way ahead of the rest of the world in terms of lithium iron phosphate batteries which are much less prone to ignite and burn, are less expensive, last longer, charge faster and don’t use cobalt or nickel.

          The west is going to wake up one day and find that they can’t export much in the way of vehicles because the Chinese are beating them on price and quality. In my neck of the woods most of the new heavy duty trucks on the road have names like Shackman, Foton, Sinotruck and FAW. Ever heard of them? They’re all Chinese. Chinese cars and SUVs including EVs are showing up now too. We are seeing quite a few SUVs called Haval, a division of Great Wall Motors (GWM).

          With the face off between the US and China, it is quite likely that Americans will remain blissfully unaware of the disruption taking place in the ground transport space. There are a couple of companies in China that each make more electric buses in a year than all the electric buses made in the west since the beginning of time. Let that soak in

        2. Plugin fleet chart with forecast 2024 to 2028,
          for transport fuel consumption for World see Stat Rev of World Energy Regional Oil Consumption tab and comment linked below

          https://peakoilbarrel.com/short-term-energy-outlook-june-2024/#comment-777864

          Average annual increase in consumption of light and middle distillates and fuel Oil was about 50 kb/d from 2018 to 2023.

          Note the 100% EVs by 2033 is for sales of EVs, about 746 million plugin vehicles by 2037 in my scenario(roughly 50%, not 100%) the range of my EVs has been as advertised, where I live the EV is cheaper than an ICEV. Cost will continue to fall, in fact it is the reason depreciation seems so steep for EVs because they keep getting cheaper. In a few years time it will be the ICEV that suffers from severe depreciation because nobody will want a vehicle with such a high TCO. ICEV sales will plummet. Also if autonomous vehicles are perfected there will no longer be a need to own a vehicle TaaS will take off as owning a vehicle will be an unnecessary expense, only the very wealthy will continue to own vehicles.

          The chart below assumes autonomous vehicles do not get approved prior to 2029.

        3. Unpacking The McKinsey Mobility Consumer Survey — Henny Penny Edition

          The Takeaway

          There is so much more to the McKinsey report than some EV owners saying they are switching back to conventional cars. What we can learn from that survey is that there is a lot of turmoil in the auto industry, turmoil that is being leveraged by political considerations in an election year in which one candidate says all federal support for the EV revolution will come to a screeching halt on “Day One.”

          The primary consideration is that today, the world wastes about three-quarters of all the energy contained in the oil and methane extracted from the Earth. Most of that wasted energy is in the form of heat — more heat in the past few decades than 25 billion atomic bombs. The painful truth is that if we continue our profligate ways, we are dooming our children to a world in which extreme heat, drought, flooding, wildfires, and sea level rise will make life untenable. Less expensive electric cars are in the pipeline; better charging infrastructure is just around the corner as well. Convenience or a sustainable Earth? That is what this all comes down to. Choose wisely.

        4. Carnot,

          I did talk about fossil fuel increases in the comment linked below

          https://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-update-june-2024/#comment-777192

          Fossil fuel consumption in 2018 was 488.5 EJ and in 2023 it was 504.8 EJ an increase of 16.3 EJ over 5 years or about 3.3 EJ per year on average or an average % annual increase of 0.66% per year, the change from 2022 to 2023 was 0.74% for World fossil fuel consumption due to rebound from Covid low in 2020.

  7. Back during the Great Recession 2008-2009 the amount of unrealized losses sitting on the balance sheets of the banks just here in the US was about $75 billion.

    Currently in 2024 the amount of unrealized losses on the balance sheets of the banks just here in the US is $675 billion.

    At the end of the day liquidity is all about risk. Not central bank hand waving. If the commercial banks decide it’s too risky to lend then liquidity dries up.

    All the QE and interest rate cuts in the world won’t matter if banks decide it’s too risky to make loans.

    China is finding out that it doesn’t matter what rescue programs they try to put in place. They don’t matter if the banks and the general public believe their real estate market is too risky.

    Asset prices can continue going up as long as banks and the public believe the risk involved is minimal. But as soon as it’s deemed too risky. Liquidity dries up and assets prices fall.

    As assets are the collateral backing the loans . When asset prices go down these banks are going to eat the losses.

    A lot of loan modifications going right now. They are trying their best to keep from having to mark assets to market.

    When you are a bank and you are hemorrhaging you tend not to make new loans. Which puts further downward pressure on prices.

    The capital needed to expand energy use is going to dry up.

    1. Office buildings are deflating in the U.S. and some people predict that it will result in a crash worse than that of 2008-2009.

      1. CRE buildings deflating is a global problem. As is unrealized losses on bank balance sheets.

        I don’t have the numbers for Europe. But remember they had negative interest rates. I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet to say the total unrealized losses on European bank balance sheets is likely larger than the US banks.

      2. They’re not wrong. I genuinely don’t see how you pull out of this nosedive now since most of the levers have already been pulled until they snapped. There’s nothing left in the tank with ZIRP gone, and if you go back to that, say hello to rocket inflation anyway.

        It’s almost like this shit should have been dealt with over a decade ago, rather than kick the can down the road. Well, guess now we’re going to have an amazing start to 2025 at this rate.

        Unless your name is NVIDIA, things probably not going well.

        1. I see rates going back to zero and negative but there won’t be anything inflationary about it. It will be because we are in a global deflationary bust.

          But just looking at oil. If Israel turns its attention from Hamas to Hezbollah. Which I’d say is very probable. It’s going to drag Iran into full scale war against Israel.

          Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure would definitely be a target. Potentially seeing prices that just financial blow up global economy.

          1. Yeah, I guess the deflationary spiral they’ve been doing everything they can to avoid is becoming inevitable now.

            I still can’t believe Israel will go after Hezbollah. It really does show how little of a shit Bibi gives about anything being resolved here, so long as he avoids prison time. He already tried the dragging Iran in with the strike on the consulate in Syria and the US managed to defuse that. Looking tricky to keep dodging that bullet.

            I don’t think Iran will go into a confrontation. But you better believe they, and Russia, will be backing their proxies like Hezbollah and anyone else that can exact a price. The Houthis are having a whale of a time keeping a carrier battlegroup occupied, not that it’s helping the shipping rates any.

            The nightmare scenario is Hezbollah taking the gloves off, the IDF floundering and the US being too stretched to do anything like, say, protect Saudi fields from being hit by drones or ballistic missiles while the Strait of Hormuz gets closed and Iran’s oil production hit.

            1. I don’t know about the likelihood of war expanding,
              But if Iran gets more hostile to capable enemies then Karg island terminal could be toast in less than an hour.
              Iran does know that. And yet they put it at risk last month. For them the theocratic expansion is worth it, so it seems. They are certainly not in these battles for economic power or national survival.

            2. Approximately 90% of Iranian crude exports depart from Kharg Island. Iran’s exports have been roughly 2.5 million barrels per day so far this…

          2. I agree with your interest rate view. Not sure about overall deflation though because of the labor shortages ( in the west at least) that will only get worse as time goes on. Anti immigration attitudes don’t help that of course.

  8. “Honey, don’t forget to take out the trash!”

    Global trash

    ‘While plastic waste has garnered huge attention in recent years due to its impacts on marine life, electronic waste (E-waste) is the fastest growing waste stream worldwide. Global E-waste generation stood at around 50 million metric tons in 2019 and was forecast to grow by around 40 percent in just one decade, to reach some 75 million tons by 2030…. While E-waste is a fast-growing stream, food is still the most common form of waste, accounting for almost 50 percent of global MSW generation.’

    Add to that the billions of humans pooping and peeing every..single..day.

    https://www.statista.com/topics/4983/waste-generation-worldwide/#statisticChapter

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1168066/largest-waste-producing-countries-worldwide-per-capita/

    1. There are videos I’ve seen of people living in what amounts to a landfill full of plastic, who melt it down and reform it to sell to make pennies a day. All the while inhaling death fumes and practically bathing in microplastics. It’s horrific.

      And then there’s studies about how plastic is literally in the deepest sea trench and on the highest mountain. How the clouds are somehow seeded with bloody micro- and nanoplastics. Every testicle and penis and umbilical and blood sample taken now has shown signs of microplastics, things that were not about even a decade ago.

      Literally becoming that George Carlin sketch where he talks about Gaia bringing about humanity in order to make the plastisphere. I wonder if the carbon from burning oil or the plastics as byproduct will be what do us in sometimes.

  9. Over the last couple of decades I’ve finally managed to master one of the very toughest of all personal challenges…… admitting to myself, and publicly, that I’ve been wrong about major questions or issues, personal, scientific, economic, or whatever.

    Back in the TOD days, I was generally a hard core doomer. I had plenty of excellent evidence of various sorts, I had the necessary background in the physical sciences to be entitled to my own personal opinions or beliefs, as opposed to taking the word of particular authorities, or even accepting the consensus beliefs of particular professional authorities.

    I couldn’t see industrial civilization surviving very long, primarily for the same reasons our resident skeptics believe that industrial civilization is a dead man walking.

    And I started thinking hard about things I could do, and things we as a society could do, to avoid at least the worst consequences of built in Seneca’s Cliff crash and burn landing.

    I gradually came to the realization that while we’re collectively at extreme risk, even existential risk, there are serious arguments to be made for not only our survival as a species, but also at least for the POTENTIAL survival of industrial civilization… not as we know it today of course, but in a form that allows some of us to continue to live and enjoy the best parts of it, such as food in stores, at least basic modern medicine, clean running water, peaceful streets, electric lights and refrigerators, maybe even a personal auto or truck .

    I believed in Peak Oil, and in a catastrophic economic crash as a consequence. I was at least a couple of decades too early, and now I see it as something ( hopefully ) playing out gradually over at least a decade, maybe two or three decades, giving us time, if we use it, to change our ways and get along ok on a very minor fraction of our current per capita oil consumption.

    Peak minerals…… ditto.
    Peak water …… ditto
    Peak food production…… ditto
    Peak damned near anything…… ditto, IF we play our cards right, and get some lucky breaks.

    So….. let’s take a look at the assumptions the pessimists make, and the alternate assumptions I’m making, for the sake of this discussion. I’m ready to admit I may be wrong in some cases.

    So …… in no particular order……

    The world wide population problem, assuming we avoid a worst case sort of collapse in the meantime, is going to solve itself.

    I’m qualified to have my own PROFESSIONAL opinion in respect to agriculture, public health, and some other relevant topics. A substantial portion of our kind will die hard before this century is out, as the result of natural resource depletion, climate troubles, war, disease, starvation, genocide……..

    The population crash is very likely to be regional and piecemeal rather than sudden and global, barring very possible hot war between larger and more powerful countries.

    Most of the people who are going to die hard are going to die in place. Mass migration isn’t in the cards, except in some relatively backward areas. Getting across oceans isn’t easy, and getting past militarized border fences designed to keep people out rather than in is going to be almost impossible. A few people, maybe even a few million, will slip thru of course. Not many at all, in terms of the big picture.

    Bottom line, if we make it thru the next fifty to one hundred years, the population problem will pretty much be off the table. Those of us whose grand children make it thru in places such as the USA won’t be competing with billions of other people for such natural resources as are still available. The global population may very well fall back to a billion or less by twenty one twenty four.

    Food and fiber…… Well, I’m pretty much in complete agreement with Carnot and company, in terms of the survival of industrial agriculture as we know it, and I practiced it myself, off and on, over the course of my working life. Going organic , going without the VAST industrial infrastructure that provides INPUTS to farmers and processes, ships, stores, packages, and sells farm production is an utterly idiotic proposition, for now, and well into the future, indefinitely, ASSUMING the continuation of business as usual.

    Just going without diesel fuel and fertilizer would mean the end of life as we know it TODAY.

    But once we are face to face, nose to nose, belly to belly, with the choice of doing without, or doing what’s possible, we’ll hopefully do what’s possible, assuming of course that we have time enough to change our ways.

    We can, if we have to, and we may very well have to, at gun point, give up our current lifestyles and go back to a simpler way of farming by the tens of millions of people, while eating WAY down the food pyramid, eating very little in the way of highly processed food, wasting next to nothing edible, switching to new staple foods better suited to the future climate, better suited to localized small scale production, etc.

    Talking about such a transition, within the context of life as we know it today in a country such as the USA, is the height of absurdity…….. not because it’s technically impossible, but rather because it’s an absolute non starter politically. It’s ok to talk about it in vague terms as a future solution, but anybody in politics who takes it seriously NOW couldn’t get elected as dog catcher in a hippie commune.

    But if the chips are all on the table, and our survival as a society depends upon it, it can be done, if it MUST be done.

    Things may just go entirely to hell in a hand basket….. but I personally expect most national governments to come to an understanding that it’s either uncontrolled collapse and chaos, or going to something along the lines of a wartime economic plan, enforced by any authoritarian means that prove necessary to doing so.

    More later.

  10. The Supreme Court has ruled that Joe Biden is safe from prosecution for acts he takes to protect his country in the next four months…diamond joe you know what to do.

      1. I was thinking more along the lines of- the Supreme Court ruled that Biden can sleep outdoors in a public space.

        I don’t really understand the logic; the President can now commit crimes but can’t regulate smokestacks.

        “I’m a small government conservative which is why I’m glad the executive branch has transcended democracy, making presidents kings.” ~ some grifter on the Supreme Court, probably

        1. Everyone is screaming for Democrats to fight back and DO SOMETHING but Nancy already stood up and pointed her finger at Trump in a meeting that one time, so they’ve obviously exhausted all their options.

          1. If you vote for them this time, they’ll codify Roe v. Wade into law. Don’t ask why Obama also had that as thing he was totally going to do.

            Also, love that in the same week we’ve got legalised bribery for state officials and also the president can do a little coup when he dislikes the election result and suffer no consequences.

            A normal and functional country.

    2. diamond joe you know what to do
      You mean put the Supreme Court before the firing squad? That wouldn’t be nice.

      I doubt it will happen. I’m sure that’s the last thing on their minds. It’s the Robespierre syndrome. They think that groveling to Trump will keep them safe.

      “The revolution, like Saturn, devours its own children”. That was true in 18th century France, and in Stalin’s Soviet Union. The Khmer Rouge were another textbook example.

      I suppose the Supremes figure Trump is a nice guy who would never let power go to his head. Loyalty and gratitude to his underlings are just his style. But if Trump becomes president, the Supreme Court are the only political power that can challenge him.

      People forget so fast what it is like to live with monarchs who are above the law. Remember Elizabeth I of England? Great queen, lovely person. She had her sister’s head chopped off. She was a threat.

      And look at Trump’s good buddy Kim. Murdered his uncle and his half-brother, to name a few. They were threats. Trump “fell in love” with Kim, by his own account.

    1. Agree that combustion projections out to 2100 are useless, and even 2050 is quite stretch.
      My guess is that global peak combustion (carbon emission) will be in about 10 years,
      but that there will be a long fat tail out to 2050, even when taking into account technology innovation and deployment.
      Atmospheric carbon will be at about 500ppm by 2050…might even be able to taste it on the hot humid nights (of which there will be a lot).

      1. Hickory,

        The long fat tail is possible, but not likely in my view. Kind of like the long fat tail in film use for photography, CRT sales, and buggy whips. Fossil fuels as an energy source will go the way of the horse as a source of transportation, I don’t know how to ride a horse, I imagine I am not the only one.

        1. I assume a long fat tail since 9+ billion people will still have massive combined demand for fossil fuels energy
          -in difficult to replace applications (for example flying, heavy industry and transport, remote operations including agriculture, winter baseload, summer peak loads),
          -the inertia of a massive system of deployed ICE’s,
          -and the inability of billions to afford more efficient equipment.

          I do agree that in the light transport sector the demand will fall off more quickly, readily apparent trend development over the next 10 years.

  12. Hideaway, here are average values (AU$ per MWh) for Australian electricity for the last 12 months (1 Jul ’23 to 1 Jul ’24), rounded to the nearest $:

    – solar (rooftop) $26
    – solar (utility) $42
    – wind $62
    – brown coal $73
    – black coal $107
    – gas (CGGT) $165

    Why would any commercial entity burn fossil fuels at those prices?

    – https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=1y&interval=1d&view=discrete-time
    – https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-inches-towards-renewable-targets-as-most-advanced-wind-and-solar-state-goes-backwards/

    1. John- “Why would any commercial entity burn fossil fuels at those prices?”
      Here are three reasons
      -as backup/baseload to fill the gap of intermittency
      -inertia of the system…we shouldn’t underestimate this. Existing combustion plants and support infrastructure, and the industry jobs are big long term investments that will be utilized for decades
      -Vested Interests. Big money entities make money collecting ‘rent’ from millions of captured customers…they fight hard to keep that gravy train running to their benefit. They own utilities and politicians. For them its a great deal. Its likely the reason that Hideaway argues so hard for coal. A spokesman for the sector, so it seems.

      1. Hickory … “Its likely the reason that Hideaway argues so hard for coal. A spokesman for the sector, so it seems.”

        Totally and utterly wrong. I’d love for the solar industry to be much more economic than it is. I’m on to installing my forth solar system for our house with my first solar panel (yes just one) bought in 1985. That Renew economy article John refers to is the organisation set up by a friend of mine that runs 2 solar shops..

        I’m into reality, not pipe dreams. We built the system with cheap coal, oil and gas. This cheap energy allowed 95% of people to do work other than gather energy. We need this kind of ratio to keep modernity, it’s simply not possible without burning cheap fossil fuels that are leaving us anyway. If fossil fuels were still plentiful, we couldn’t keep using them at anywhere near current rate because of climate and environment damage, which is very very real..

        Being against what wont work, is certainly not in favor of fossil fuels. We are destroying our living environment and backed ourselves into a corner by believing in fairy tales that can’t save modernity anyway. It’s people denial of a bad outcome and belief in miracles that has prevented us from taking the necessary action for many decades.

        In reality, any civilization that relies upon non renewable materials cannot be sustainable in the long term. We can never recycle 100% of anything because of entropy and dissipation, therefore we need to keep mining for some resources. As we use the easy to get materials first, we require more energy to get those from further away, deeper and lower grade on average.

        We need to keep increasing energy use to stand still (as in replace just what was lost back to the environment), otherwise we have less every year. Growth of energy use, means growth of everything needed to gain that energy, which means growth has to happen for civilization to continue in the long term.
        It’s actually very simple physics.. We have had efficiency gains mask this simple reality, but even assuming 100% efficiency, still means more energy needs to be used next year for the deeper, further away, lower grade ores on average.
        You can’t grow forever on a finite planet, therefore civilization cannot be maintained in the long term if it relies upon anything non renewable.
        The only possible long term civilization is one relying upon rock, soil, water, wind, plants and animals, not metals and minerals..

        I agree with you, no-one wants to admit there is no long term solution, so we will continue to destroy the environment by burning more fossil fuels, and ripping up the last natural areas for materials to build renewables, denying a bad future until collapse happens.

        1. Hideaway…thanks for correcting my false impression.
          I am in agreement with the gist of your assessment.
          We do differ in what steps to take now and over the next couple decades, to some degree.
          To be brief about it, I do think that places with abundant solar, wind, geothermal resource should take full advantage of the ability to offset fossil fuel combustion. This can delay the crushing economic impact of energy poverty coming from fossil fuel depletion, giving the populations of these regions some time to digest the predicament, and stop having children. I admit that this realization comes late for the mob, easily 50 years late.
          I realize that Contraction will get ugly, no matter what measures are enacted since we are so far beyond what the foundation can support. There is no playbook.
          I do hope that Australia retains a degree of stability and security.

          Secondly, I am strongly in favor of placing much larger parts of planet off limits for human intrusion. A thousand remnants can add up to preserve some trace of biologic diversity.
          For all practical purposes, this is the only place in the universe with life.

        2. Hideaway,
          Civilisations fail because agriculture causes soil to be a NNR (non-renewable natural resource ). The entropic dissipation of metals and minerals apply to soil as well. The average erosion rate of soil under cultivation is at least ten times the rate of soil formation. Soil salination and desertification also remove large areas from production each year.
          Cities convert a cyclic nutrient system, which exists in a natural ecosystem, into a linear system, dependent on a supply of mined nutrients, which are a finite resource, subject to dissipation just as metals are.
          Agricultural lands that have an annual alluvial deposit, such as the Nile river delta once had, replenished by soil erosion in the Ethiopian highlands, are an exception to the general erosion predicament.

          1. Yes, certainly happens and is another reason why our civilization will fail.

            Any one of a myriad different reasons we constantly discuss could alone bring civilization down, the odds are we have many all at once in the near term future.

            The real problem is that there is so much we are doing incorrectly in terms of sustainability, that to discuss them all in one go would take a book…

            1. Yes, Even if CO2 was a benign atmospheric substance , the rest of the systemic intractable civilisational flaws remain. A book, ‘”Feed or Feedback “, by Professor Duncan Brown has been written about the subject mentioned in my previous comment. Brown quips : ” Cities are the reason that this civilisation will inevitably go down the tube. “

      2. Hickory,

        You may be correct that a few fossil fuel plants will be kept as backup, this will likely be 1% to 10% of current capacity (likely closer to 1%), for the rest they will lose money because they cannot compete with solar, wind, and batteries and will be shut down.

        1. Dennis, I’d put the need for backup fossil fuel power as much higher in many/most places. They will be heavily subsidized if necessary in order to keep the capability to fire up at will.

          1. Hickory,

            I suppose we could spend more on a system that does more damage to the environment, but have a bit more faith in average human intellgence than you perhaps.

            1. True, I don’t have much faith in the collective decision making of humanity.
              But for me its mostly about the practicalities of the situation, with a late and tepid start to the attempt along with great inertia. Add to that the difficulty for many peoples/countries to throw big capital at the job.

            2. but have a bit more faith in average human intellgence than you perhaps.

              Up here in Toronto, we are building new, and expanding existing, Gas-powered Electricity plants. Why, you say? Because the Premier of Ontario (a Conservative) wants to be the Prime Minister eventually, and thinks that using Alberta gas into the foreseeable future will help him politically (Alberta leans Conservative). He doesn’t care about the cost or the damage to the climate.

              And Trump hates windmills and electric cars.

              Now, questions arise about “average human intelligence” in both cases, but that’s not my point. These choices are not always made in good faith or for the common good.

              One can have too much faith in common sense.

    2. John… Did you read and understand what you are showing? It’s showing ‘value’ not cost. Brown coal, black coal and gas are more valuable than either solar rooftop or utility… It has nothing to do with cost…

      At those prices every commercial entity would burn fossil fuels because it’s ‘value’ is higher…

      ….

      Here is what the second article actually states in the second link….. ” There’s also a heap of battery and pumped hydro projects in the pipeline, nearly 80 gigawatts with varying levels of storage.
      That’s more than enough to meet Australia’s 82 per cent renewable energy target – several times over.”

      Storage is in GWh not GW, GW is the rate you can send electricity into the grid. Assuming it’s GWh and the magazine made a mistake in terminology, how does that stack up to a single state like Victoria where we had a windless and sunless week with a stationary high pressure system sitting over us recently.

      At current average electricity use of 7GW, or 1,176GWh for a week, the 80GWh is just a drop in the ocean. However to build enough ‘storage’ is totally uneconomic at anything close to current prices. Instead of linking to articles, how about doing the calculations, because the authors of articles like that certainly don’t!!

      It’s this total lack of understanding what’s required, that guarantees we go into collapse when the availability of oil decreases at an accelerating rate..

    1. “Where will it stop?”
      The limitation will be electricity.
      The countries that can divert the most electricity to compute will have a great advantage over others.
      AI applications will take priority over the electricity demands of the general populace.
      It will be justified as a national security issue (foreign and domestic).
      Justified by those who are the owners of the systems, and by AI itself.

  14. Lets hope Island Boy is staying high and dry.

    I think Kamala Harris has a big advantage over other Dem prez candidates-
    that being VP for 4 years is a huge education in policy, foreign relations/international security, and leadership that none of the other candidates have. Also, going up against a felon trump as the former attorney general of the biggest state in the country is certainly a big attribute in the toolkit.
    On the downside she has had a quiet and unremarkable performance as VP, although to be fair that is their job and is always the case.
    We’ll see if she can command the stage over the next month. I expect Biden to announce passing the baton to fresh leadership by Monday.

    1. There was a letter (probably in the NYT) suggesting that Biden resign immediately and have Harris go into the convention as the President.

      Makes a lot of sense to me: there are conceivably 20 Democrat hopefuls. This would cull the field.

Comments are closed.