153 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, June 3, 2023”

    1. John , why ? My answer ,the food has become unaffordable for the majority of the public worldwide leading to lower food prices ( except rice ) . This is not a good sign as it means more people going to bed on an empty stomach ,

      1. Historically there’s been about a 98% correlation between oil price (which dropped about 10% from April to May) and deflated food index. The correlation is still very close but there are sighs that since 2021 food is more expensive than would be expected indicating that there may be something else going on (e.g. climate disruption and shortage of fertiliser and cereals because of Ukraine would be the most likely culprits). But there’s not really enough data to show for sure and the statistics to formally show where correlations break down is beyond me. There was a similar but shorter exceedance in 2011 when Russian grain exports were temporarily halted after drought and heat waves. Variations in oil price are still having bigger impacts than crop failures, but maybe not for much longer at the rate things are changing.

        1. There are a few other big factors, aside from oil price, that would be expected to have a significant impact on the trend of global food pricing.
          -large acreage diverted to biofuel production
          -increasing population (mouths to feed)…roughly 1%/yr
          -widespread land degradation (salt, drought, erosion…)
          -disruption of Ag sector operations and international trade due to conflict, such as in Ukraine
          -climate destabilization

    2. Not sure if this is inflation adjusted numbers, but to me it seems the rise in 2020 and 2021 was primarily driven by the impact of the pandemic, while the bounce in 2022 was a consequence of the Ukrainian war. Seventy million more mouths to feed every year is a factor in the background. Interesting to see where it goes from here.

    3. You can have the Reanimated Corpse of Global Capitalism or you can have Affordable Food. You can’t have both. Peak Everything has essentially killed the global economic system but yet it lives.

  2. Shallow Sand, you live in a county with a lot of meth problems? This Atlantic article (pay-wall?) discusses recent developments with treating meth and fentanyl users…

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/harm-reduction-decriminalization-fentanyl-meth/674214/

    In an era of rampant fentanyl and meth use, drug courts and a reimagined jail—alongside robust support for voluntary treatment—should be foundations for that revival. An arrest can be an act of compassion when the odds are that, outside, meth will drive a user mad and fentanyl will kill him.

    1. I don’t know much about fentanyl.

      But meth is quite common in my area, and while it’s bad stuff, it’s not very likely to “drive a user mad”.

      A lot of people use meth for years at a time, just as a lot of people use booze on a regular basis.
      You can’t tell just by casual observation. Some people quit, just as some people quit booze.

      Some people can handle it.

      It manhandles some people.

      In the long run, it ruins a heavy user’s health. Addicts are likely lose their jobs, their homes, and their families in the worst cases. Some of them wind up in jail because they start dealing or stealing to raise money to support their habit.

      But as bad as it is, it’s not as bad as it is usually pictured by the media.

      Booze can be as bad or even worse. I’ve known a bunch of far gone alcoholics over the years who lived hard and died hard because of booze.

    1. Andre , “If hes right, this would be a game changer.” Yeah , ever hear about the meat grinder called Bakhmut . Daily mail ?? Better if you read ” The Sun ” owned by Murdoch . They have better models also . 🙂

      1. The Daily Mail is great.

        There is at least one article on the Kardashians ( Kim, Chloe, Mom ) posing in their underwear every day!!! /sarc

        The comment section is a hoot!

          1. Syaya , I like this Kim because of his brains , but I dig the other Kim for her body . 🙂 .
            Excellent find .

            2. When thinking about the Kardashians (not that kind of thinking OFM..wink wink)

              and their lack of talent other than looks (their father defended OJ Simpson in his murder trial).

              The purposely leaked ( claimed it was stolen ) home made porn movie….

              Created 3 different billionaires in the same family…….

              I heard a rumor that SEX SELLS

              I’ve got a brilliant idea to link EV, Wind and Solar to a free porn account if you use it to solve our energy predicament.

      1. I think Putin has some tricks up his sleeve before he gets ousted.

        1) Blowing up oil infrastructure
        2) Blowing up underwater sea cables
        3) Tactical Nukes – used locally

        He probably cannot get his chain of command to start a nuclear war because they would turn on him.

        1. The only way Putin will not be in control is if he dies, and I’m years older than him.
          He is a very popular ruler in Russia.
          Another conservative authoritarian.

          “Vladimir Putin’s approval rating in Russia monthly 1999-2023. In May 2023, over 80 percent of Russians approved of activities of the Russian President Vladimir Putin. The popularity level was five percent higher than in September 2022, when it stood at 77 percent.”

          1. In May 2023, over 80 percent of Russians approved of the activities of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

            Anyone who disapproved of Putin in that poll is now in jail.

            1. All conservative leaders are up for altering the score.
              Putin for sure

              But that is not confined to Russia.
              Be wary of any government and military data

            2. Andre , a bunch of convicts (Wagner) defeated a force trained by NATO with built in fortifications for 8 years supplied by $ 150 billion of equipment from the West in Mariupol and Bakhmut . The Russian army was ‘ missing in action ” . Imagine what will happen when the full spectrum capabilities of the RF are applied . Don’t grab the popcorn , grab some toilet paper . 🙂

            3. “A joint poll by World Public Opinion in the US and Levada Center [6] in Russia ”
              I guess they are even threatening polls in the USA?

            4. “A joint poll by World Public Opinion in the US and Levada Center [6] in Russia ”

              Hightrekker, You put that in quotes like I should know who you were quoting. I have no idea. At any rate, polls conducted in the US have no bearing whatsoever on what Russian citizens, who are in Russia, think about Putin.

            5. Ron–
              It is really quite simple—
              Th data I presented was mainly from a USA source, not a Russian source.
              Not that a USA source is any more accurate- just letting you know.
              Comprende?

          2. Putin lives under a mountain in a nuclear bunker ( a super duper nice one….)

            and has food tasters and body doubles.

            Having immense power but not being able to enjoy your life wouldn’t be worth it for me.

            You always have to think about someone is trying to kill you.

        2. Putin does not need tricks , because the Five Eyes are in self destruction mode .
          HMS Prince of Wales

          “The UK’s newest and biggest aircraft carrier broke down on the second day of what was meant to be a months-long deployment to the US. HMS Prince of Wales, a £3 billion ($3.5 billion), suffered a mechanical issue Sunday and remains near its base of Portsmouth on the UK’s southern coast.

          Britain’s two new aircraft carriers may never be able to go to war alone as ‘UK forces unable to support them…”

          Add to this the disasters called USS Gerald Ford and the F -35 . The Gang That Can’t shoot straight ” was a comedy . What is this ?

          1. Hole in Head, your a liar. You said you were done posting on Ukraine war.

            HIH -“Last post on Ukraine”
            https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-may-19-2023/#comment-757689

            Russia’s offensive in Ukraine has ‘failed’, says former US general – BBC News
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5NS_rkFL8c

            Ukraine official: Gates of war have opened on Russian territory
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMY0sHZfkz8&t=22s

            The War that Russia started in Ukraine should not be limited in Ukraine. Russia deserves to have it on it’s on soil. Slava Ukraine!!!

            Respect for all Ukrainians and all helping them to defend their country and families.

            Hole in Head is a Russian fascist sympathizer troll

            3. “Hole in Head is a Russian fascist sympathizer troll”

              Standard insults for anyone who questions what the mainstream media is selling them.

              If the topic is peak oil, then the insults are ‘doomer’, ‘cassandra’, ‘communist/socialist’ etc. but the underlying mental dynamic is the same, the adjectives substitute for arguments in order to defend the mind against someone who questions the dominant narrative.

            4. Standard insults for anyone who questions what the mainstream media is selling them.

              Then there are those who never believe a damn thing the mainstream media says. They are called “Conspiracy Theorists.” They believe things like Jewish Space Lasers are setting forest fires, the Moon landing was a hoax, Dick Cheney and the US Government were responsible for 9/11, and Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election.

              Yes, I know many people who do not believe a damn thing the mainstream media says. And I never believe a damn thing they say.

            5. Also people who claim they don’t believe “mainstream media” tend to watch Fox News religiously and believe very bit of it.

            6. That’s it, you guys have the hang of it now,

              If someone disagrees with you about a war, they are a ‘fascist enemy-sympathizing troll’

              If someone doesn’t take everything the media tells them at face value, they are a ‘conspiracy theorist’ who believes in space lasers (I mean, when has the media ever lied to us about a US war before, am I right?).

              If someone has a different opinion from you, they are a gullible ‘Fox News watcher’.

              It is so much easier coming up with adjectives and ad hominems instead of arguments, you can see why that approach is so popular.

            7. (I mean, when has the media ever lied to us about a US war before, am I right?)

              Oh, for goodness sake. The media is not a single entity that has one story to tell. The media comprises thousands of reporters who try to report the news. Are any of them liars? Out of many thousands, there are bound to be a liar or two. But speaking of “the mainstream media” as if they are one organization that is out to deceive the general public is not reflective of one who knows what the hell they are talking about.

              Of course, there are entire originations that do collude to spread their ideology. They have an ideology to sell and preach it at every opportunity. And they are far from news organizations. They are propaganda machines, pure and simple.

          1. Note the Dam was mined!!!!!

            Do you think that is the only thing that is mined?

            How do you defend against underwater mines???

            Putin is going to take people down with him.

            1. Hi , Andre De Groot , regarding the $ 250 billion deal with the US for supply of submarines to Australia . What will be they made of ? Wood ?? Bamboo ?? Maybe you cow dung pellets imported from India . ” Show me the steel ” ROFL .
              Show me the money . Tom cruise .
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnrb8HnQvfU

    1. I’ve mostly stopped clicking on the “AI does something incredible or scary or both!!!” articles, but every time I do I am insanely disappointed. I agree with those that are saying AI will be extremely useful or whatever but the reactions throughout the economy are bordering on hysterical. This bubble was blown pretty fast but put on top of the Mother of All Bubbles. I don’t think it will last very long without free money / ZIRP spigot.

  5. U.S. has been falling behind on life expectancy for decades – Between 1933 and 2021, 56 countries achieved higher life expectancy than U.S. – “Americans are sicker and die earlier than people in dozens of countries”

    Us Americans (that live in the US-Cubans live longer than we do) don’t live as long as our other first world comrades.
    And it has been a while.

    https://desdemonadespair.net/2023/06/u-s-has-been-falling-behind-on-life-expectancy-for-decades-between-1933-and-2021-56-countries-achieved-higher-life-expectancy-than-u-s-americans-are-sicker-and-die-earl.html

    1. Roman Atkinson is a petrolhead with a fleet of cars worth an estimated 12 million dollars. And one is an EV. Old rich white men get very set in their opinions and stop listening to changing evidence. I should know, I am one (except the rich bit, only 2 cars, 1 EV).

      1. Ralph , I think you are a first time poster . Thanks for being honest about your situation ( 2cars , 1 EV) . Honesty is something which is in short supply . Hats off . Keep engaged .

        1. Hole in head,

          For my household it is 2 cars both of which are EVs. I am an old white man.

    2. It’s strange, you can be rich, successful and well-loved in your profession, yet you still feel the need to put an article out where everyone can see it which basically says, look how stupid I am – what is the motivation?

      A whole article about the environmental benefit of electric cars, without once ever mentioning any assessment of this done in any study or analysis.

      He is aghast that people get rid of their cars after 3 years (while he himself accumulates a garageful of vehicles), but it doesn’t seem to occur to him that cars don’t go the scrapyard after 3 years, they get sold to someone else who drives them. The average of cars on the road is rising everywhere, but somehow trade-ins after a few years means that electric cars are not an environmental benefit??

      Sure, there has been a million analyses done which all show that an electric car has a lower environmental footprint vs an equivalent ICE car, but he still claims (believes?, wishes?) that ‘Electric propulsion will be of real, global environmental benefit one day, but that day has yet to dawn’

      14% of cars sold in 2022 were electric, vs. less than 5% in 2020, but he, personally, ‘feels’ that the ‘honeymoon with electric cards is coming to an end’. Porsche is building something in Chile using wind power, JCB is going to build hydrogen vehicles for real, in just a few years, Mr. Toyota traded a cow for some magic beans, maybe Formula 1 has the solution – the whole thing is comically absurd, like a parody of a concern troll writing more in sorrow than anger about how electric cars will never work, as the world transforms around him.

  8. For the EV dreamers.

    https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/ford-is-losing-66446-on-every-ev

    https://www.tdworld.com/electrification/article/21162919/evs-remain-mostly-out-of-reach-for-poor-americans

    ICE subsidize EV just like fossil fuels subsidize renewables. No energy transition ever needed government intervention. That’s why this transition is just a dream for a few young rich revolutionaries.

    Affordability drives economies not supply and demand. Economy of scale creates affordability. The 1% can’t fly without the 99% buying tickets. The used car market is more important than the new car market. It’s the entry level buyer at $5000.00 that is actually doing all the work in this country.

    Dream all you will about twisted EROI calculations 90% of the country doesn’t have more than $400.00 in savings. They’re not buying an EV to park on the street and run an extension cord from their 2nd story windows to charge it because their window AC is already plugged into that outlet.

    1. JT is entitled to his opinion of course.

      But it’s obvious he has little or no understanding of the way prices come down as production ramps up in any sort of industry………… even though he points out himself that rich people wouldn’t be able to fly except for the fact that middle class people also fly, thereby enabling the air industry to exist at a sufficiently large scale.

      Electric car prices are coming down and will continue to come down, once there’s enough manufacturing capacity for some real competition to develop.

      And perhaps he should ponder the fact that he’s posting in forum devoted mostly to the study of the end of the fossil fuel era and the transition to the new era of renewable energy.

      The people who are always ready to tell us that wind and solar power won’t work, and that electric cars are a boondoggle, etc, apparently never stop to consider the fact that oil comes out of holes in the ground….but that it never rains oil, at least not on THIS planet, lol.

      So far nobody is even making a plain jane electric car for the American domestic market.

      And used electric cars aren’t cheap………. yet……… but in ten years……. there will be plenty of reasonably cheap used electric cars on used car lots.

      It took a couple of generations for ordinary cars to get cheap enough that most people could actually afford one.

      And there will be PLENTY of new conventional cars sold for quite some time to come, so that there will be plenty of used ordinary cars available for another twenty to thirty years, as electric car production ramps up over the next ten years or so.

      1. “It took a couple of generations for ordinary cars to get cheap enough that most people could actually afford one.”

        Not true once Ford introduced the assembly line car production became so cheap and affordable everyone could own one. The key ingredient was exceptionally cheap energy. In the span of one generation hundreds of car companies developed. Packard, MG, Morris, Maxwell, Studebaker, etc. etc. Since the 70s it has been in contraction. Why? Affordability!

        Cheap energy drives innovation. Expensive energy causes consolidation.

        The prosperity of the US wasn’t a result of political will or industriousness. It was the result of having resources that were untapped by the previous residents. So determination is irrelevant.

        No matter how determined the present population is to advance this way of life it simply doesn’t matter. We are bound by physical and ecological limits. The incredibly long supply chains needed to feed EV is not how we developed and simply won’t work without the fossil fuel system that supports them.

        1. What percentage of people had cars in the 1930s?
          At the start of the 1930s, only one in 5.5 Americans owned either a new or a second-hand car, and although Americans did not give up their autos during the Depression of the 1930s, there were fewer opportunities for new consumers to buy into personal motor mobility.

          Let’s not forget that cars today are far more expensive because there just AREN’T any plain jane cars available in this country. There isn’t a single new truck at any dealer in the nearest city to my home on a dealer lot without power steering, power brakes, air conditioning, electric windows, and a long list of safety related and comfort or entertainment features associated only with luxury cars, or simply unavailable, a generation back.

          Plus today’s new cars outlast those built back in my own younger days by a factor of two to four.

          What is the median wage in the US 2023?
          Median weekly earnings of the nation’s 119.2 million full-time wage and salary workers were $1,100 in the first quarter of 2023 (not seasonally adjusted), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.Apr 18, 2023

          out 250,000,000 results (0.52 seconds)
          of year-round full-time male workers in 1960 was $5,400, $200 above 1959, and $500 and $700 higher than in 1958 and 1957, respectively. Women’s incomes, which averaged $1,300 in 1960, re- mained about the same as in the preceding three years.

          In 1960 the average new car costs about 2,752 dollars, and a gallon was gas was around 31.

          Considering that even a NICE car in the sixties was a piece of shit compared to a modern car in just about any and just about every respect, and that a modern car generally out last a sixties car by a factor of at least two, cars today are cheaper than they were back then.

        2. JT , good observations . I like “Cheap energy drives innovation. Expensive energy causes consolidation” . Just will add the following
          1. A rising tide lifts all boats . It was cheap and abundant energy that resulted in prosperity .
          2. Only when the tide goes out do you discover who is swimming naked . We are going to discover that now as we enter the era of energy poverty .

      2. OMF, I agree. You and I are both old enough to remember how troublesome gas cars were. Batteries, flat tires, blown head gaskets, transmissions, 100,000 life expectancy, etc. Everyone who drove had to be half a mechanic and keep some wrenches in the trunk. It took from the 1920s into the 1980s for ICE technology to mature (the Japanese invasion). Personally, I’m amazed how well EVs work in such a short time.

    2. JT,

      For base Model 3 the price is 41880, then deduct 7500 for Federal rebate and 2000 for state rebate (my state, this varies state to state) that is a net price of $32380, that is pretty affordable considering the average new vehicle purchase in the US is about $49507.

      For Tesla Model 3 price click on cash link at page linked below for price

      https://www.tesla.com/model3/design#payment

      For average US new vehicle price see

      https://www.autolist.com/guides/average-car-price

      1. Why do they need a rebate? Where is the tax base for the rebate coming from? Hint oil gas maybe? At what point will EV need tax assessment for road work and how do the numbers stack up then?

        My grandfather bought a Maxwell as a teenager in a hick town far away from any urban economy in the 20s nobody gave him a tax credit to do it. EVs will require subsidies perpetually which is not a business model. It’s fake business built on lobbying politicians. BTW wind and solar are the same.

        1. JT,

          Without the Subsidy, the Tesla model 3 is still cheaper than the average new vehicle in the US.

          Many states already charge EVs at registration and they actually pay more than their fair share of road taxes in those states. The road taxes should be pais for all vehicles at registration based on miles in the odometer and by vehicle gross vehicle weight, those that lie about this should pay hefty fines, this would level the playing field.

          The subsidies for Oil and Gas vehicles were the lake of any pollution tax and the government financing the interstate highway system to be built, the fuel taxes have never cover the cost of roads and bridges in the US, it has been subsidized by tax revenue.

          On a societal level there have been lots of hidden subsidies for the oil and auto industries.

          I would be happy if the subsidies for EVs were eliminated in exchange for a carbon tax paid at the fuel pump for oil and at the well head for natural gas and at the minemouth for coal output.

          1. This fossil fuel subsidy question is confusing. Subsidy on one hand but surplus energy from fossil fuels pay all the cost of government on the other hand. Directly or indirectly fossil fuels pay for the government, even the portion funded by debt, so the subsidy is an illusion? Or just a complicated way of slicing the pie.

            1. Bogwood,

              There are many components needed for fossil fuel demand, roads, electric grid, pipelines, etc. There are also social costs to pollution and climate change that are not included when assessing the cost of producing and using the fossil fuel. Taxes, fines, and clean air and water regulations try to address some of the external costs. Another way to address these costs is to subsidize electric transport that might reduce pollution especially when coupled with subsidies to move electric output to higher proportions of wind and solar power. Despite claims to the contrary when we look at fossil fuels at the point of use they fare worse than wind/solar EVs in terms of surplus energy.

        2. I’m not interested in arguing, but you might Google, “Historic fossil fuel subsidies vs renewable subsidies” Lots of material to look at. Here’s one that popped up near the top, from a renewable advocate, but looked pretty rigorous. They claim historic FF subsidies are 19 times as much as RE.
          https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Apr/IRENA_Energy_subsidies_2020.pdf
          As always, a bit of skepticism, consideration of sources, comparison of facts, all the traditional research skills, is in order.
          How are subsidies for highways, opening up public lands for drilling, and the Gulf war not part of the equation?

      2. And BTW Dennis a model 3 Tesla is not an average American car to your comparison doesn’t work. It’s a Toyota Corolla which is $21,000.00 without rebates.

        1. JY read the link. The average US new vehicle price was 49k in 2022. The Model 3 is more comparable to a high end Toyota Camry even the base model for the Tesla is equipped like the high end Camry. For the Camry XLE Hybrid equipped simalarly to the base Model 3 the price is about $41500, not far from the price of the Tesla Model 3 without the rebate. The rebate for the Model 3 covers the carbon tax that the Camry should be paying.

          In time the price of the EV will be lower than the ICEV.

          Perhaps you have never driven a Model 3 or Model Y, they are more comparable to a BMW or Mercedes in quality, comapring it to a Toyota Corolla is an apple to orange type comparison.

            1. JT,

              The sticker price was about 29k for the car reviewed. Hey if someone would rather have the Corolla, they can choose that. The Tesla Model 3 at 32k after rebates is going to have far lower total cost of ownership.

        2. JT,

          The best selling Car in the US is the Toyota Camry (this exludes both pickup trucks and SUVs) the best selling non-pickup truck is the Tesla Model Y for 2023Q1. The Tesla Model 3 was number 2 car for 2023Q1. Scroll down to quarterly sales at link below.

          https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2022-us-passenger-car-sales-figures-by-model/

          For non-pickup trucks, the Toyota Camry and Model 3 are #5 and #6 with 4 SUVs with Higher sales in Q1 of 2023 (Model Y, Toyota RAV4, Nissan Rogue, and Honda CRV.) Pickup trucks hold the top 3 spots and the number 8 spot for all vehicle sales, with Model Y at number 4 and Model 3 at #10 for all vehicle types.

          https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2022-us-vehicle-sales-figures-by-model/

          Scroll down to the quarterly sales chart.

    3. I’d have a conversation with Musk about how Tesla is doing business.

      Even Tesla was losing money when it started out in the EV business. Same with SpaceX.

    1. Tesla makes about $9000 per car. They drop prices to increase production volume, as they are building factories with capacity to build several million more cars per year. (They raise prices when they can’t keep up with demand.) They are lowering their production costs with innovations like massive die castings for the front and rear subframes, and are using humanoid robots as production tools. They are gearing up to produce a smaller car that will eventually hit a run rate of 4 million units a year.

      They have $22 billion cash on hand.

      Those other guys (Fiat, Ford, and everybody else):
      – started too late, so they have no experience or supply chain
      – didn’t commit (they don’t have the software systems that Tesla has, and didn’t spend the teens losing money to position themselves where they are now)
      – are burdened with existing vehicles and production systems (and debt….10’s of billions of dollars of debt).

      So it’s not that electric cars are a pipedream: electric cars are hard, and Tesla now has an insurmountable lead.

      Also, Tesla isn’t really a car company anymore: it’s an AI company that just happens to build cars. They expect that 10 years from now, they will make more money on the Optimus robots (which use the self-driving software and chips) than on cars…and considering that they expect to make 20 million cars a year by 2030, that’s a lot of money.

    2. Ten year old “news”. Sergio Marchionne is dead and buried, and Fiat 500e’s are selling like hotcakes.

      The secret sauce? Falling battery prices.

      This is what the tech bros mean when they talk about disruption. When all your knowledge is ten years old, everything you know is wrong.

    3. JT,

      Things have changed since May 2014 when this post was published, find some up to date information and you might come across as being informed.

    1. Go tell Iowa that wind energy is a power sink-

      “Wind energy powered 58% of Iowa’s net generation”
      https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=IA

      In places where it is windy [light orange or greater on the map…over 6 m/s at hub height]
      wind energy is a winner. https://globalwindatlas.info/en
      If you put wind turbines where it is not windy, then don’t expect good results. Its not complicated.

      Sweden has a huge wind energy reserve. Its offshore potential alone is equal to the annual output from about 250 nuclear power plants (1000 MW each).
      https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Sweden_Offshore-Wind-Technical-Potential_GWEC-OREAC.pdf

  12. So even if we could accept the intermittent nature of wind power. When no wind is present the blades must be kept turning. So presently on low wind events windmills draw power from the grid. So storage of some kind is absolutely needed to keep wind farms in operation as the article demonstrates. In this case it was diesel generators.

    https://www.spiegel.de/international/business/stress-on-the-high-seas-germany-s-wind-power-revolution-in-the-doldrums-a-805505.html

    1. “When no wind is present the blades must be kept turning. So presently on low wind events windmills draw power from the grid. ”

      Hilarious.
      Do you write your own stuff, or have a paid subscription?
      Are you so desperate because your livelihood is threatened?
      You are working hard to compete with Hole n Head for self-imposed irrelevancy and award for embarrassment.
      At least he gets paid for it.

      1. I went to a windfarm open day a few years ago and the wind turbines at this farm run at a constant 12kw of use, whether operating or not. It’s all the electronic gizmos inside them, cooling fans and motors turning the turbine into the wind, plus changing the angle of blades when operating to keep a constant rate of rotation.
        No the blades are not turning when there is no wind.

        Being 3Mw turbines, the background use of power is only about 1.6% of what’s generated on a yearly basis, based on the actual capacity factor of 25% for this wind farm. We were told the CP was 37%, back at the open day when the farm was still being built, but it hasn’t performed at that rate. You can go to the “Mt Gellibrand wind farm” to see any particulars you like about it…

        Being 44 X 3Mw turbines, the farm still uses 3,468Mwh of electricity in the course of a year when the wind isn’t blowing.

        1. Hideaway
          Right so presently without grid tie they would become unusable. We’re dependent on 24/7 dispatchable power. Most people do not understand how complex our system is and naively believe we can can just turn a switch and be on a new system. When they become exposed to the reality of what can or can’t be done they often throw an emotional tantrum as is demonstrated above. Don’t kill the messenger Hickory it won’t change anything.

          1. “throw an emotional tantrum “

            That’s why climate change gets higher billing than fossil fuel depletion as a threat to BAU. People would throw a fit if were told to transition to alternative energy due to depletion. Using climate change mitigation as a rationale seems to calm people down, thinking at least that’s reversible.

    2. Meanwhile the worlds utilities have decided to install enough new wind energy facilities this very year to equal the annual electricity output of roughly 40 new Nuclear power plants [1000 MW each].

      Their action shows the value.

      “Don’t kill the messenger”
      Use your intellect and judgement to post information that is both relevant and truthful.

    3. Hey if you just don’t want any policy or utility or innovation or news that is at all favorable to non-fossil fuel energy then just come out and say it loud and clear. No need to make up all kinds of silly stories or lame ass reasons.

      What I’d like to hear is the underlying reason for the bias against non-fossil energy. Is it
      -a purely partisan position…your party staked out a faulty position a long time ago and it would be too embarrassing to make a major league backtrack with the tail between the legs?, or
      -because you are employed in the fossil energy industry and fear unemployment?, or
      -because you have investment in the fossil energy industry and fear poor returns?, or
      -because you hope to profit on severe energy shortage, sooner the better?, or
      -because you live where it is really cold, and you have dreamed of someday being able to grow tomatoes and peaches…’bring on the heat’?

      If not these options…just what is it?

      1. JT is rather obviously a paid Mr Magoo type of troll, lol.

        Just about everything he has to say WAS true, at some point in time in the past. Just about everything he has to say is wrong to miserably wrong as of now.

        I’ve been reading the sort of shit he posts for twenty years now. At first it was that wind and solar power could never be more than ten percent of grid capacity. Now it’s up to well over fifty percent in some areas.

        Then it was hot spinning reserve. He’s still banging on that old dead horse, talking about wind turbines using power when the wind isn’t blowing.

        He’s good at arguing like a fool, or like the fool he is. Remember that Twain told us all about arguing with fools in public. They’ll wear you down and beat you with experience.

        Such people come out with one after another nut case argument, and rather than stick to the point, just jump to another argument, again and again, falsehood after falsehood.

        Well informed people don’t fall for this bullshit, but unfortunately half of the people in this country don’t know enough to recognize his bullshit for what it is.

      2. Some people are have other reasons for being against deployment of solar, wind, nucs, electrical grid and related fossil fuel alternatives, aside from what I listed above. For example
        -Some think that these efforts will never be able to 100% replace the energy provided by fossil fuels,
        so it is a failed effort from the start. Why try at all?
        -Some people think that the sooner and quicker that Overshoot is corrected…the better. This is the collapse scenario where humanity achieves an extremely rapid, forced, involuntary downsizing. Why even plant the seeds for next years crops? This is where fundamentalist christians and extreme environmentalists coalesce.

        JT, what is/are your reasons?

      3. Hickory
        How about reality?
        For example, Tesla’s valuation is greater than Toyota and Mercedes-Benz combined and the owner of Tesla actually thinks it’s possible to travel to and inhabit Mars even though humans have not traveled more than 60 miles from planet earth in the last 50 years. I’m not sure how you would define nuts, but that’s how I do..

        The reality is we’ve had electric cars since the 1890s they’re nothing new they simply can’t compete with internal combustion engines. But there’s more to it than that. Another reality is our way of life is built around mining whether it’s minerals and elements or energy everything we depend on is coming out of some kind of mine somewhere in the world. All mines suffer from depletion and are eventually shut in. For example, oil is just one of them but the same holds true for lithium or cobalt. so beyond the fact that it is never been demonstrated that you can have a reliable electric system built solely on wind and solar, even if you could build out to the scale necessary it hasn’t been demonstrated that those resources are even available at whatever the extraction cost is . But it certainly has been demonstrated that it is unsustainable. Because every mine is eventually closed.

        Some here think that you can simply recycle wind and solar and eventually no mining is needed. That’s ignorance of the basic laws thermodynamics . You would need an infinite amount of energy to actually accomplish that and if you have that who needs wind and solar.

        I have no financial or political interest in the subject I just get tired of the silliness. We were warned in 1972 about the Limits to Growth. And precisely as was predicted because of depletion capital would have to be diverted more and more for energy. So whether it’s the high cost of fracking or building wind and solar, that’s exactly what is taking place today. The only reason that any other discretionary spending has been possible is because of the huge amounts of public and private debt that has been packed onto the system since the 70s. Without that debt, our way of life would’ve been much much smaller. And it’s not about ever paying it back that’s impossible. It’s about the fact that if we can’t continue to borrow things fall apart. And we have reached that limit.

        Most of us here know that fracking was never financially viable. The only reason it happened was the cheap cost of financing. That was brought about by QE. But the same is true of wind and solar. Without the government subsidies all along the way, from manufacturing to installation to the subsidized price structure wind and solar are not viable, particularly given the fact that they never have to account for any backup to solve the problem of intermittency.

        Then you have people who want to knock the fact that internal combustion engines are only 30% efficient. What a waste!!!! Who are once again ignorant of thermodynamics and how heat engines actually work. Then they simultaneously discount the inefficiencies of electrical distribution. Because 30% is about all you get at your meter from what has been produced. And worse than that most of the electric that’s been produced is still coming from fossil fuels stil as you charge your Tesla. That’s not carbon free is it.

        1. JT,

          Maybe we could use the energy constantly entering the Earth’s atmosphere from the nearest star?

          Metals can be recycled, there will be a demographic transition so that fewer materials will be needed.

          Just because something has not been done does not mean it cannot be done.

          Yes much of the electricity comes form fossil fuels currently, but that is changing and will continue to do so as more wind and solar power are installed. As far as energy the Tesla uses about one quarter of the energy of an ICEV over its life cycle. Emissions are also lower over the life of the vehicle sing average current grid emissions, though over time this improves as the grid uses less and less fossil fuel.

          Best selling vehicle in the World for first quarter of 2023 was the Model Y, yeah those EVs just can’t compete with the ICEV, kind of like the ICEV couldn’t compete with the horse in 1910.

          1. And we have used precisely that near star energy in the form of fossil fuels. The geological life combined with biological life which is unique to planet earth has produced the best energy storage system ever created. And it will not be surpassed by anything we can do. Energy transfer is from low entropy to high entropy high temperature to low temperature highly organized to lower organization.

            However our planet takes diffused elements and concentrates them in ores that are rich enough that we can energetically afford to reach them. Through geological activity and biological activity. This is not witnessed anywhere else in the universe. Why is it here? How did it happen? Can we do better than what has already been done?

            We simply can’t do what the earth does for us. And even after having squandered 100million years of inheritance are we materially better for it? Are we happier? More productive? Are we richer in what matters like wisdom? Or has it been used to kill each other more efficiently. Poison the planet and ourselves in the process.

            Anyway everyone is entitled to their opinion. I believe what can’t be done won’t be. I’d rather follow science than political promises no matter how well they paper them over with more debt. The mining industry in all its forms is already exhausted and in decline. Not to mention earth’s ecosystem. Of all the problems that should be addressed I think having an electric grid operating solely on wind solar and hydro is low hanging fruit but we can’t even do that.

            1. JT,

              Yes we have used the stored energy from millions of years of sunlight over the course of 200 years. I imagine you can see another path is needed.

              There are lots of problems, many can be ameliorated, but will often cause more problems. We currently understand that utilizing the fossil fuel is having and will continue to have damaging consequences for the environment.

              Likewise continued population growth will destroy the planet. In many parts of the World fertility rates have fallen to below replacement particularly as women gain more equal rights and have access to better education. We may reach the point Worldwide where total fertility ratios fall to 1.5 or less as is the case in most industrilalized nations. At the World level the total fertility ratio has fallen from an average of 5 live births per woman over their lifetime in 1965 to about 2.31 live births per woman over their life in 2022.

              As an example of how fast total fertility rates(TFR) can fall, South Korea had a TFR of 6.07 in 1959, by 1977 the TFR had fallen to 3, by 1998 the TFR has fallen to 1.49, and by 2021 the TFR in South Korea is 0.88.

              A number of policies in South Korea have tried to increase the TFR, so far without success. Population will be roughly one third of the 2021 level by 2100 in South Korea.

              If the World can reduce the total fertility ratio, we could see fairly rapid decline in population which puts less pressure on the environment.

              Energy use will be decreased by using less thermal fuels and producing electricity by other means directly (wind, solar, and hydro) heating for buildings and water can be done more efficiently using heat pumps with ground source heat pumps used in very cold climates.

              EVs are 4 times more efficient in energy use than ICEVs and manufacturing costs will continue to decrease over time.

              When we account for the lower use of fossil fuels in a World with mostly EVs, mining is reduced because oil extraction is essentially a mining operation as is natural gas and coal production. Most of this mining is reduced as wind and solar ramp up. On balance mining is likely reduced by this transition.

              See https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-3

        2. JT…I agree that mining/materials is a big/huge issue.
          It is one of the reasons that I believe it is a high chance that only part of the energy now supplied by fossil fuels will be successfully replaced in a timely manner.
          There are other reasons as well.
          But if only a portion of the energy that is lost due to fossil energy depletion is able to replaced by other sources before constraints set in…all the more reason to act with sense of extreme purpose on the energy system right now. Kind of like China has been dong for a decade.

          if you are the kind of person who likes to learn by listening to podcasts….here is a decent one on the copper industry. Gives you a sense of the supply challenges- https://www.canarymedia.com/podcasts/catalyst-with-shayle-kann/will-a-copper-shortage-hinder-the-energy-transition

          [I think the answer is yes. As always, those who have the money/credit will be able to afford stuff for much longer than others].

        3. JT,

          Transmission and distribution losses are about 7.5% for the US grid. I understand very well how heat engines work, learned it Mechanical Engineering Thermodynamics classes long ago.

          See

          https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/

          The claim the Transmission and distribution losses average 70% is specious.

          1. High Voltage DC transmission lines [HVDC] are used for big project long distance service.

            “HVDC transmission losses are 3.5% per 1,000 km (620 mi)”,
            with some variation based on the voltage level and equipment specs.

            1. Hickory,

              A lot of loss comes from the distribution network as well, but lower transmission losses would help especially over long distances.

    4. “When no wind is present the blades must be kept turning.” Good joke

    1. “TREADING LIGHTLY”
      Indeed! What can you offer up as suggestions on that Doug?

      1. Maybe protect natural resources as much as possible, as a start.

      2. “TREADING LIGHTLY”
        Indeed! What can you offer up as suggestions?”

        Well, when you consider that the CO2 emissions per billionaire are 1 million times that of someone in the bottom 90%, it seems pretty clear where to start.

        And you don’t have to break out the guillotines, banning private jets would be a start, it is so obviously an easy thing to do that we just need to wait for the people who make the rules to put this one in place. Oh, I see, the billionaires make the rules? Well, I guess we are screwed then.

        1. “banning private jets would be a start”
          To be serious,
          All of global combustion based air travel needs to phased out over this decade.
          Perhaps will the exception of ‘search and rescue’ and similar activities.

          This might seem extreme but this is the kind of big change that is necessary to stabilize conditions.

          1. All global combustion-based air travel needs to be phased out over this decade.

            Are you serious? There is no other type of air travel. Battery-powered air travel is a pipe dream. You are talking about phasing out air travel altogether. Fat chance of that happening.

            1. Ron, there is a very small new industry sector that will gain a traction- short haul electric plane fleet. Really too small to be considered in this discussion, but in some places like the puget sound region this will popular.

              More to the point, the rapid phase out of air travel will not happen but it is the kind of serious action that would be necessary to begin to make a dent in CO2 emission.
              And so we get hotter.

          2. “To be serious, All of global combustion based air travel needs to phased out over this decade.”

            Sure, but can you expect people to give up mass market air travel, while billionaires are flitting around the globe in their private jets? That is why I said it would be a place to start, not a place to finish. But we can’t even do that much, can we?

  14. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56700

    After 54 years of providing power to Pennsylvania and New York, the Homer City Generating Station in Pennsylvania will close by July 2023, according to the plant’s owner. The 1,888 megawatt coal plant began generating electricity in 1969, when Units 1 and 2 entered service. Unit 3 was added in 1977.

    Coal plants across the country are retiring; U.S. coal-fired capacity has contracted from 313 gigawatts (GW) in 2005 to around 196 GW today. The Homer City coal-fired power plant was built before the turn of the century and was designed to provide base load power, operating nearly continuously to meet the minimum amount of regional power demand. Recently, coal plants have struggled to effectively compete in competitive U.S. power markets against newer, more efficient, natural gas-fired, combined-cycle power plants.

    …

    Load-following plants adjust their power output as demand for electricity fluctuates throughout the day and by season. In contrast, base load power plants are usually run at near maximum output and are only taken offline to perform annual maintenance or repairs. As the Homer City plant became less competitive economically and was dispatched for load following rather than for base load power, the plant generated less electricity, and its capacity factor dropped. The Homer City plant was operated at an annual capacity factor of 82% in 2005. The capacity factor dropped to 20% in 2022, contributing in the decision to retire the plant.

  18. The rarely considered “Mega Cap Tech / Dollar General” Ratio is hitting fresh lows.

    “A squeeze on budget shoppers has forced US discount retailer Dollar General to cut its sales forecast, sending its shares down 20 per cent in a sign of mounting pressures in the American economy.”

    their customers are busy buying low-margin essentials (i.e. food) and less on discretionary, durable items. Americans don’t have extra cash for DOLLAR stores… that’s a bad sign. Maybe Dollar should install AI or something.

    https://www.ft.com/content/060033af-ad25-468e-a38e-6f6bdc5d563c

    1. There are dollar general stores in my neighborhood.
      They don’t sell discretionary durable goods.
      Never have, probably never will.
      And they don’t sell groceries, except for highly processed ready to eat or heat and eat junk food, beer, soft drinks, that sort of stuff.

      They’re a little bit cheaper ( a very little bit) on most items they do sell than local supermarkets, but it’s my opinion that they’re successful mostly because they locate in places where the nearest super market is at least four or five miles away………. meaning it’s really handy for customers to shop there, as opposed to making the longer trip.

  20. I’ll do it for you Doug:

    Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
    May 2023: 424.00 ppm
    May 2022: 420.99 ppm

    A new all time high (for the last few 1000’s of years) for the monthly average (May is the annual peak in the northern hemisphere).

    The chart shows its not a new trend. Depressing to think in 1998 at the time the Kyoto Protocol was being negotiated atmospheric CO2 was more than 50 ppm lower

    1. L.O.L. Thanks. Meanwhile, respecting methane, the annual growth rate for 2020 was the highest scientists had recorded since systematic annual methane measurements began in 1983—an increase of 15 parts per billion, which was exceeded again in 2021. Climate scientists consider methane to be the second-most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide.

      1. Yeah, the methane is getting out of control, and combined with the reduction in sulphur (due to the new shipping regs) things could get pretty ugly/interesting in the next decade or two. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, scientists only consider it secondary to Co2 in importance because it doesn’t last nearly as long in the atmosphere – but it won’t have to last long to do a lot of damage at the rate we are going.

    3. And if you add up the effects of greenhouse gases in addition to CO2 you get the AGGI [annual greenhouse gas index], which is now at a level of CO2 equivalency of 523 ppm in 2022.
      And rising.

    4. In the spring of 2020, over a three month period the world fossil fuel consumption drop by 20%. Could someone please point out on the Mauna Loa graph a corresponding or any for that matter, reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

      1. Your post just indicates some lack of knowledge in regulation (PID or otherwise), especially about the lag effect.
        If you had ever tried to regulate a large thermal mass (or anything with a slow response) you´d know.
        Case in point, it might show up as a small dip/reduced increase in a decade or so.
        Btw. sorry about my harsch language. (edited)

  21. China grain imports. Huge increases since 2017. I’m guessing the rice and wheat are for humans and the corn for cattle feed? (via Daily Shot)

    2. I don’t have numbers handy, but a hell of a lot of corn is used in highly processed convenience foods in the USA. This is probably true in China as well, given that lots of Chinese consumers these days have enough money to afford such foods.

      But most of the corn, probably well over ninety percent of it, is used for livestock feed. Hogs and chickens are far more efficient meat producers than cows,which explains why you don’t hear much about cattle farming in China.

  22. A satellite service in France, Theia, measures the water levels of lakes and water reservoirs like the Nova Khakovka Dam. The data suggests that Ukraine artificially raised the water level in the reservoir to the highest level in 8 years just before the dam was destroyed.

    Any insight comrades

      1. IF the water level was raised, the Russians are obviously responsible for this aspect of the destruction and flooding.

        And there should be TONS of evidence coming shortly from people who live and work near the reservoir.

        Of course it’s possible that the reservoir manager(S) deliberately held as much water as possible, in practical terms, for legitimate purposes, such as having it available over the next few weeks for irrigation, or to generate as much hydro juice as possible over the next few weeks as well.

        I can’t see that destroying this dam will help the Russians in any really significant way, other than simply delaying the Ukrainian forces moving in their direction. But a week or two or three is enough time for the Russians to make significant improvements in their own defensive arrangements.

        1. Hightrekker,

          It is up to the operator of a dam to monitor reservoir levels, when levels are too high you simply release more water from to reduce the level. Russia was controlling the dam, up to them to monitor it.

          Obviously.

          1. Dennis-
            Did you read the link?
            This delusion would be addressed.

            1. Hightrekker,

              I guess everyone believes what they want to hear. It seems this hurts Ukraine’s ability to launch an offensive against the Russians, so Occam’s razor suggests it is likely a Russian move. One can take their news from Moon of Alabama if they choose, but I don’t believe everything I read on the web. There is a lot of crap out there.

              The higher than normal water level in the reservoir is solved by opening the gates. The Russians had control of those gates.

              I have never operated a hydroelectric dam, but I imagine there is the ability to control the water level behind the dam.

              Regardless of what is claimed about water releases upstream. The water can be allowed to flow through the dam.

      3. as for the water levels, possibilities: 1) ukraine pushed water levels higher by releasing upstream (huge reservoir north of Kemenchuk), or 2) russians pushed water levels higher by closing the gates.

        as for the dam: 1) russians blew up dam to slow ukrainian counteroffensive push east of Kherson, 2) ukranians blew it up to push russians away and secure safe access to Dniprovska Gulf, 3) it collapsed from damage from earlier bombings by whomever.

        I actually think the Russians did it. if you look at a map zoomed out – flooding that part of the Dniper just cuts off that lower part of Kherson peninsula completely away from ukraine, making the idea that ukraine could ever reclaim it very difficult. this gives the russians more ability to focus on areas north.

        https://www.ft.com/content/4351d5b0-0888-4b47-9368-6bc4dfbccbf5

        1. From Quora on this question.

          “Let me think.

          The dam that Russia took control of on the first day of the war, 24 February 2022 and has controlled since.
          The dam that Russia admitted it had mined, when Ukrainian troops were approaching Kherson in October 2022.
          The dam that Ukraine’s president Zelensky warned Russians were going to blow up and asked to dispatch international observers to, in order to prevent an ecological and humanitarian catastrophe. (Never been done.)
          The dam that Russians themselves said they were going to blow up when Ukrainian troops approach.
          The dam that was built during the USSR times to withstand an external nuclear bomb explosion.
          The dam that was supporting agriculture and farming in Kherson, Zaporizhia and Drnipro regions, allowing Ukraine to be one of the world’s main producers of grains.
          The dam, destruction of which will cost Ukraine billions.

          Who could have destroyed it?

          Russia:

          We mined the dam of the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station, and if the Armed Forces of Ukraine go on the offensive, then we will blow it up!

          * Armed Forces of Ukraine go on the offensive, Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station explodes.

          Russia:

          It’s not us, it’s all the Armed Forces of Ukraine! Dispatcher Carlos will confirm!”

          278.4K views
          View 6,301 upvotes
          View 43 shares

  23. I know how heat pumps work, no problem.

    But this video leaves me with a couple of nagging questions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tvjV11Vefc

    HOW does this system make it possible to store heat for later use?

    Is there a giant hot water reservoir that’s not mentioned?

    There is a very brief mention of a battery but nothing about the capacity thereof.

    It’s easy to see running this equipment flat out anytime there’s excess wind power available…….. which wouldn’t really balance the grid in a useful way, because wind turbines can be idled if there’s no use for the juice.
    There’s no mention of a sub system capable of using stored heat to generate actual electricity that can be sent to the grid, other than a word or two about the battery.

    Maybe there’s enough CO2 in a giant reservoir to hold the CO2 under high pressure for cooling purposes at later times when cooling is needed……. but there’s not a whole lot of cooling needed for homes and offices in places so far north.

  26. OCEANS WARMER LAST MONTH THAN ANY MAY ON RECORD

    Year-round, long-term trends have added 0.6C to the ocean’s surface waters in 40 years, said C3S deputy director Samantha Burgess, noting that April had also seen a new record for heat. Temperatures over the ocean could be further boosted in coming months as we are seeing the El Nino signal continuing to emerge in the equatorial Pacifc.

    https://phys.org/news/2023-06-oceans-warmer-month.html

  27. Good interview on nuclear power hosted by Nate Hagan.
    A perspective worth taking in, regardless of what you already ‘know’ about it.
    https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/74-james-fleay

    One big point that was made was that a nuclear program in any country, with its big capital requirement, extremely long lead up/construction time, and big ‘complete system’ needs, cannot be accomplished by any company. Rather, the requirement s are big enough that reactors only get built with a large degree of government involvement. The comments on this aspect were very interesting.

    The Annual World Nuclear Status report 2002 can be seen here
    https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2022-v3-lr.pdf

    I draw your attention to the key insights on pages 16/17

  28. https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/with-incentives-a-tesla-model-3-now-costs-less-than-a-toyota-camry-in-california/

    In California federal and state rebates total $15000 for the Model 3 bringing price of base (272 mile range) M3 to 25240, less than the base Camry at 26320. The long range Model 3 (333 mile range) costs 7000 more so 32240 after rebate in California.

    Note that the Toyota Camry is the best selling car in the US (not including pickup trucks and SUVs).

    The higher end Camry V6 that is more comparable in performance and features to the M3 Long range has an MSRP of 36563. The acceleration of the Camry V6 is still a bit slower than the M3 LR (zero to 60 of 5.6 sec for V6 Camry vs 4.2 sec for M3).

  30. Time to upgrade your air conditioner?

    WORLD WARMING AT RECORD 0.2 C PER DECADE, SCIENTISTS WARN

    From 2013 to 2022, human-induced warming has been increasing at an unprecedented rate of over 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. Average annual emissions over the same period hit an all-time high of 54 billion tons of CO2 or its equivalent in other gases—about 1,700 tons every second.

    https://phys.org/news/2023-06-world-decade-scientists.html

  31. At the risk of repeating myself: WTF?? … is going on in the Antarctic.

    I can’t find a calculation of the change in earth energy imbalance due to the loss of sea ice since 2014 so I tried to do my own calculation. The biggest unknown is cloud cover, I assumed this reduced insolation by 50%, but it could be anything to be honest. I modelled Antarctica as a disc around the South Pole with thee sea ice as an expanding and contracting doughnut and the lost ice as a thinner doughnut on the outside of this. The current EEI is about 1.4W/m2, up from around 0.4 in 2000, I get that about 0.4 of this is from Antarctic sea ice loss (i.e. about 60% of the increase since 2014). It’s order of magnitude only (probably with an error bar of -0.35 to +0.05, but it is consistent with what has been seen.

    One interesting thing is that the area of newly opened water is never in full night, by the time the southern winter hits the ice has grown enough in the idealised doughnut to be just into still getting some sun.

    Although it wasn’t referenced in the paper concerning slowing of the southern overturning circulation (where the cause is mainly put with fresh water coming from land ice melt) I’m sure the loss of freezing of the sea ice and reduced expulsion of heavier brine must be having an effect as well.

    Also El Nino now official.

    1. “Also El Nino now official.”

      EL NIÑO IS BACK, AND IS POISED TO TURBOCHARGE EXTREME WEATHER

      Climate scientists say El Niño will probably push average global temperatures beyond a record set in 2016. That year, an intense El Niño triggered deadly heat and precipitation and was linked to rainforest losses, coral bleaching and a rise in diseases such as cholera and dengue.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/08/el-nino-effects-global-warming-weather/

    2. The Arctic went through something similar in 2020, but then rebounded in the years afterward. So there’s no reason to get your panties in a knot when you can just wait for next year to see the ice go back up.

  32. More news on El Nino.

    HERE COMES EL NINO: IT’S EARLY, LIKELY TO BE BIG, SLOPPY AND ADD EVEN MORE HEAT TO A WARMING WORLD

    An early bird El Nino has officially formed, likely to be strong, warp weather worldwide and give an already warming Earth an extra kick of natural heat. It formed a month or two earlier than most El Ninos do, which “gives it room to grow,” and there’s a 56% chance it will be considered strong and a 25% chance it reaches supersized levels, said climate scientist Michelle L’Heureux, head of NOAA’s El Nino/La Nina forecast office.

    https://phys.org/news/2023-06-el-nino-early-big-sloppy.html

  35. Trump has been indicted on seven federal counts in Florida.

    I’m grinning ear to ear.

    We’ve been hearing a lot of grumbling from some people on the left about the Justice Department not getting the job done for months now.

    But such investigations always take a long time.

    And while the timing of these indictments is probably pretty much in line with the time needed to do the work, it’s a happy coincidence that this dirty trump laundry, and that of his hard core right wing political friends, will be all over the news from now until next election.

    1. Good for GM and GM owners, likely neutral for Tesla, very bad for Tesla owners…many superchargers already at or beyond capacity…but overarching impact is that there might finally be a standard supercharger plug…

      Overall, need less supercharging and more level II charging at home/work/shopping areas.

      At some point the grid will strain under the weight of too many superchargers, ACs, other energy uses all running at the same time. Most cars (including EVs) are only driven 30 minutes to an hour each day, the other 23 hours can be spend slow charging.

      Also need to see more chargers at gas stations, eventually they wont be selling gasoline, and at current rate their sales are likely falling each month…

      Eventually superchargers will be for business uses, where vehicles are operating ~12+ hours per day.

      1. Kengeo,

        Could be bad for Tesla Owners, in places that I travel (New England and NY/NJ Metro mostly) there is not much congestion at Superchargers, Tesla has improved their interface so you can view in real time the number of open chargers on the touch screen and adjust your stops accordingly, that has helped when travelling in the Boston Metro area where there are many different charging stations to choose from on major interstates. This is great for Ford and GM owners.

        Tesla will make more money on its installed infrastructure so the higher capacity utilization will mean a quicker ROI so good for Tesla, that’s why they made the deal.

  38. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66mf3DsavV4

    Included in the highly classified documents that “The Donald” aka Mr. Trump stole to allegedly sell for personal profit…

    Were vulnerabilities to the USA from a foreign attack!!

    And Jared Kushner got 2 billion (amazing for a new career!) for his startup from Saudi Arabia!!!

Comments are closed.