98 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum March 12, 2025”

  2. Some didn’t like my comment-
    “If people have more money they use more energy and energy derived products.
    More meat, more flying, more electronics, more square footage, etc.”

    Look at a graph of GDP/capita vs energy consumption…its a tight correlation-
    Energy use per person vs. GDP per capita, 2023
    [Energy refers to primary energy, measured in kilowatt-hours per person, using the substitution method. Gross domestic product (GDP) is adjusted for inflation and differences in living costs between countries.]
    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-use-per-person-vs-gdp-per-capita

    Same thing applies when applied to any individual country over time, if it is in a growth phase.
    There are three ways to cut collective energy consumption-
    -decline in population,
    -decline in purchasing power,
    -decline in energy supplies.

    I suspect we will experiment with all three of these mechanisms.

    1. I think that the debt spiral into which both USA and Europe have entered will cause a new economic depression from which we will never recover as the best energy forms have already been used. So my guess is category 2 on your list

    3. Indeed, on a long enough timeline, all of those must occur.

      Otherwise, one argues for infinitely increasing population, infinitely increasing purchasing power, and infinitely increasing resources. All of which are absurd, and, thus, are the things that people believe in the most.

    4. In the meantime it makes sense to find ways to live and work that requires less energy, and less depleting sources of energy where feasible. We can argue about what is feasible. It seems to me that the deployment of feasible fossil fuel extenders and mechanisms lags far behind what the risk of depletion presents. Massive example of inertia for big brained animals.

      1. ways to live and work that requires less energy
        This is happening already.

          1. The world is splitting into 2.
            Nation states arose in the last 400 years or so with the printing press and subsequent media innovations. Nationalism is about bonding with people who consume the same media.

            Martin Luther kicked it off by standardizing the German language in his anti-papal pamphlets and his bible translation spread by Gutenberg’s printing press. Since then country after country has united around a single dialect (usually the dialect of the capital city) established as the national language and shown willingness to wage terrible wars against speakers of other languages.

            There was a time when being an American meant watching I Love Lucy and Walter Cronkite.
            But the internet has changed all that. Modern media is transnational, especially since social media has weakened central control and automatic translation has gotten so cheap.

            Traditionally, the right likes to separate society along vertical lines, identity group A vs identity group B, and the left horizontally by social class. Changes in the media landscape (and the increasing futility of war) make the right’s argument trickier, splitting the entire world between the haves and the have-nots.

            It’s all in your head, zombie. And the media you consume put it there.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ejga4kJUts

            1. Alim

              You really are an ignorant moron.

              Many left of centre analysts and charities describe in great detail how societies in many countries are tearing apart with the gulf between the haves and have nots wider than ever before .

              Ignorance breeds ignorance and you prove that perfectly

            2. Loadsofoil:
              You really are an ignorant moron.
              That kind of remark makes you sound like you are in third grade.

              There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy

            3. Alimbiquated
              I love your song choice.
              The right or the left, protestant or catholic, or muslim. Have or have not. Zombies all.

        2. “ways to live and work that requires less energy-
          This is happening already.”

          Certainly, but at a pace far below capability, and the imperative.

      2. Definitely, I think it’s a very personal thing too as many of my neighbors have no interest in such. I made personal choices with vehicle size, grid solar, a job near home. I haven’t noticed any downsides either. Using less was always going to be the solution, whether voluntary or enforced, like the shutdowns a few years back.

        1. The downside of car ownership is massive debt. Americans owe a record $1.644 trillion in auto loan debt, accounting for 9.2% of total consumer debt in the United States.

          The average car payment for new vehicles was $737 per month. This pretty much shuts half the populace out of the car market. Cars are a stupendous waste of money and one of the main drivers of poverty in America.

          The stupidity of building strip malls designed for businesses paying minimum wage and no t providing sidewalks, bike lanes or mass transit for workers to get there can’t be exaggerated. You don’t care because you think it doesn’t affect you. But you have sunk a lot of your wealth into this broken system.

          1. I think Kunstler wrote about this ~10-15 (or more) years ago about the suburban sprawl, I personally guess time will prove him right.
            But the main question is if there really were some thought about the car dependancy or if it was just happenstance…

    5. Hickory,

      You’re not thinking carefully about my previous reply (So, I’ll repeat myself….!).

      Ask yourself: what’s your point? What’s your argument? It appears that you’re arguing that energy consumption will always increase, always equal supply, because people’s appetite for energy is limitless. The problem: that’s not really realistic.

      People don’t really want energy, they want the services they provide. They don’t care about increasing energy consumption, they just want to have comfortable homes, decent transportation, running water, etc. They certainly don’t care about increasing FF use, which is all we’re concerned about.

      Now, look carefully at the chart you provided. It’s a log-log scale, which makes variance look much smaller. So the Y axis goes from 10K kWh to 100,000kWh in the top third of the chart, and the countries at 10k are below $10k income. So, everything below that is in the poverty range. And, energy consumption grows up to a certain point, and then tends to plateau.

      Let’s look at the countries above about $25k in income. Look closely: you’ll see that there is considerable scatter, meaning that the correlation between energy and income is fairly low.

      Now, if we were to eliminate low-carbon energy (wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, etc) we’d see an even lower correlation…

      And there’s the fact that correlation isn’t causation: if it were, we could argue that a wide variety of consumer items and commodities “cause” GDP. The classic example is copper, which is tightly correlated with the economy, but no one should argue that copper consumption causes the economy to grow: it’s just so happens that growing GDP causes more consumption of copper. But we could reduce our copper consumption while having GDP grow: use aluminum instead of copper for about 90% of it’s uses. And if you don’t see that argument for copper, consider that there are hundreds of items that are correlated with the economy, but obviously don’t “cause” the economy. Restaurant food, cosmetic surgery…the list is long.

      Another thing: please note that you keep referring to “energy” and it’s limits. But really, you mean FF. Renewables are very scalable, solar in particular is enormously scalable, which brings us to the last item:

      There are two more enormously important ways to cut FF consumption: increase efficiency, and substitute other forms of energy. Consider that a Prius at 50 MPG gets you to work just as well as a 12MPG SUV, and an EV gets you there with no FF consumption at all.

      1. When people can afford to use more energy and all the stuff/services derived from it, they consume more of it. Air conditioning in China, air travel in India, cell phones in Kenya, cloud data in Korea….everything.
        Its not real complicated. I’m just saying what is,
        not what you or I want it to be.

        I’m checking out of this conversation.

      2. Nick G…. ” just use aluminum instead of copper for about 90% of it’s uses”

        Perhaps you should learn about material science before you make such a ridiculous statement. Any motor not connected with copper is likely to fail as aluminium is very brittle compared to flexible copper.

        “Renewables are very scalable, solar in particular is enormously scalable” Why don’t you ever include how the materials require to be mined, moved, processed and deployed with cheap fossil fuels, to make them cheap?
        That’s the reality, plus renewables with appropriate backup for heavy industrial applications are negative on an EROEI basis, hence no-one anywhere is building a heavy industry off grid, relying upon “cheap” renewables (solar, wind and batteries!!)!!

        It’s economics 101, if solar, wind and batteries were cheaper on a wholesale level, industries would be scrambling over each other to go off grid and make cheaper products than the competition. It’s not happening simply because it’s not cheaper..

        Meanwhile here in the real world power prices are set to rise by another up to 9% after rising nearly 100% over the last half dozen years, because of more “cheap renewables” making the grid unstable, and “expensive coal” power leaving the system.

        If renewables were cheaper, and coal more expensive, then shouldn’t power prices go down with more of the former and less of the latter, not the other way around??

        1. Hideaway

          I admire your attempt to educate Nick G et al but you are shoveling shite uphill. Nick G has such a poor grasp on thermodynamic principles that he still believes in perpetual motion. He is not the only one on this blog that cannot quite get it. I guess the perpetual promises of cheap renewables are too alluring.

        2. Hideaway,

          In Texas in the US they have a large amount of electric power provided by wind and solar (27% of annual total in 2023), their electricity prices are near the bottom of all US States.

        3. Renew Economy is reporting that Rio Tinto has chosen to power its aluminum smelter with renewable power:

          “Rio Tinto, the biggest consumer of electricity in Australia, has chosen wind, solar and battery storage over coal and gas to secure the future of its Queensland-based aluminium smelters and refineries.

          It is a stunning decision, and one made for a simple reason – Rio Tinto says wind, solar and battery storage offer the cheapest and most reliable energy option, and, of course, the lowest emissions.”

          https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-battery-deal-for-giant-smelter-is-a-stunning-game-changer-for-australian-energy/

            1. HIDEAWAY —
              Another possible explanation is that the investment in coal is related to the fact that Indonesia lags behind some other countries when it comes to solar installations.

              For example neighboring Vietnam had nearly 20 GW of solar capacity by the end of 2024. Indonesia had about 700 MW. So Vietnam had about 28 times as much solar. This despite the fact that Indonesia has a significantly larger economy than Vietnam — maybe four times the size and growing fast.

              The spread of solar has been uneven between countries, even between countries that are geographically and economically similar.

              When using economic arguments you should always keep in mind that markets don’t just automatically jump to ideal states. Economists claim markets clear “in the long run”, but the demand curve doesn’t have a time axis. Rapid technical change will always be accompanied by uneven development. This is especially unsurprising in the area of energy, where government policy plays an important role.

              With the recent wave of Chinese investment in solar panel manufacturing in Indonesia, this imbalance may change soon.

            2. Alimbiquated, …..”Another possible explanation….”

              It’s really simple and a well known economic principle of competitive advantage.

              If “something” was cheaper then it takes over from the more expensive option very quickly, because it gives a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

              Captive coal fired power stations are turning up in Indonesia, likewise for nickel processing facilities because it has a competitive advantage..

              No-one is doing this anywhere in the world with the same type of exclusivity with solar, wind and batteries because the cost is far too high.

              Continually trying to make excuses for something you want to believe in doesn’t make it real.

              Reality speaks for itself, when/if companies decide to start building Aluminium smelters, off grid based on their own ‘cheap’ power of solar, wind and batteries, all unsubsidised by government, then all the cornucopians have a case that solar, wind and batteries are cheaper forms of electricity.

              Until then, please stop ignoring economic reality.

              I continue to acknowledge that using coal is NOT a long term solution, it’s dirty, polluting, climate changing, plus getting more expensive in energy terms as the EROEI falls and it’s a limited resource.

              Yet it’s what we built our modern civilization upon, because the energy was economically cheap, allowing so many more complex activities to happen away from food, energy and material production. Oil and gas have just enhanced this increase in complexity and scale of the total human enterprise, allowing so few people to be a part of the energy, food and materials gathering activities.

              Expensive energy to fuel modern civilization doesn’t work, and if we had to make solar, wind and batteries from expensive energy, not the cheap dirty stuff, the cost will go up greatly, just as the access to the higher grade metals and minerals required is going down.
              It’s a physical impossibility to keep our modern civilization going once our access to fossil fuels start to decline in earnest, as we’ve painted ourselves into a corner where we require high levels of complexity and energy use to obtain lower grades of more remote, deeper, harder ore index minerals and metals.

              All that’s happening is we tell ourselves fairy tales of a bright green future, because the reality is too hard to accept. It’s so comforting to be in denial about a poor future for over 8B humans, that people clutch at every latest story of ‘transition’ that simply isn’t happening and is impossible to happen.

              Modern agriculture, mining, heavy long distance transport all rely upon fossil fuels, for energy and products. Recycling or the ‘circular’ economy entirely relies upon fossil fuels for all the chemicals or high heat energy in the processes.

              No-one anywhere is trying to set up entire supply chains based on just solar, wind and batteries because we often don’t even have the processes available without fossil fuels, or the chain of processes is so complex and material heavy, that it’s nowhere near economically feasible.

          2. Off-grid is it?? That’s news to me and anyone that knows RIO own 42% of the Gladstone power station with a 1,680 MW coal fired output for whenever the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow!!

            Then there is this bit…. “But the resources giant has been in negotiations around public assistance for the more costly storage and other dispatchable capacity before embarking on new renewable energy tenders.”
            https://reneweconomy.com.au/rio-gets-state-support-to-shift-boyne-smelters-to-renewables-says-federal-help-needed-too/

            In other words it’s not cost competitive on it’s own renewables, requires state and federal subsidies to do, and still relies on coal fired power back up as a 1.1Gw power consumption will require just on 40GWh of batteries to go for 1 full day of cloudy windless conditions (counting the night either side).

            Put the 2.4GWh battery into perspective against the requirements of say a week of cloudy windless conditions that happen!!

            Aluminium smelters are continuous operations to run most efficiently. Then there is this bit
            about what’s actually happening in the world…
            https://blogg.sintef.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Inerte-anoder-2_engelsk.jpg

            1. Hideaway,

              You linked to an August 2024 article noting that Rio Tinto was seeking government support for the shift to solar plus batteries, but not that such support was secured. Are you familiar with all of the terms of the various contractual agreements between the private and government entities for this deal?

              I’m in the US and not Australia, but in my experience it is common for state and local governments to provide a range of direct and indirect subsidies to specific business sites to support jobs. Even the fairly direct subsidies can be quite difficult to identify unless you are involved. There are also a very wide range of indirect subsidies in the US at the state and federal levels. It makes it very difficult to understand true costs. Is that different in Australia?

            2. T Hill, yo and most other people continue to miss the point I continually make. If solar, wind and batteries were indeed cheaper options than coal fired power for entities like Aluminium smelters, the businesses would make their own decision to go off-grid with their own power supply based on these renewables.

              They would have a competitive advantage to do so. Yet no-one anywhere is doing this!!

              I know because I dug deeply into govt records that the local Portland Aluminium smelter was purchasing power at 1.4c/KWh while us consumers pay around 40c/KWh. It was a sweetheart deal to sell the brown coal power at around cost in the beginning, which has led to

              No-one anywhere is suggesting that renewables can provide continuous power at 1.4c/KWh, so the most likely outcome here is the smelter will close once the last coal fired power stations are also closed.

              Most heavy industry has already left this country as labor and energy prices are cheaper elsewhere.

              Meanwhile in Indonesia….. “Most of these new coal plants, 13 GW or 69%, will be “captive” plants, meaning they won’t feed into the grid, but will instead be dedicated to powering industrial or commercial consumers. These include the aluminum smelters and nickel and cobalt processing facilities that the government is promoting to turn Indonesia into a global hub for the electric vehicle (EV) and battery supply chains.

              From …
              https://news.mongabay.com/2023/08/captive-to-coal-indonesia-to-burn-even-more-fossil-fuel-for-green-tech/

              We, as in humanity, can afford to build new cheap coal fired plants, especially for heavy industry, yet we can’t afford to do the same with renewables. By itself it tells the real story of how much more expensive continuous renewables would be, not the lie we keep trying to tell ourselves that renewables are ‘cheaper’. They simply are not!!

            3. “most other people continue to miss the point I continually make. If solar, wind and batteries were indeed cheaper options than coal fired power for entities like Aluminium smelters

              We, as in humanity, can afford to build new cheap coal fired plants, especially for heavy industry, yet we can’t afford to do the same with renewables.”

              “Cheap coal fired plants” says who ? You. Pull your head out. First there is the energy to produce the steal. But, don’t forget to include the cost to mine the material to produce the steal. Then there is the cost to transport the material. Which is small compared to the cost to transport the coal to the generation plant. Than there is the cost to maintain the cost of the grid to supply to the end user makes local batteries look cheap. Oh, the unaccounted costs you don’t account for. You know them. The disposal of the burnt coal. The ash is an environmental disaster poising earth and that’s just part of the story. There is the burning of coal that pollutes the air humans breathe. The lung cancer and healthcare costs. Also, don’t forget the costs and consequences of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere. The consequences of extreme weather event that cost Americans billions every few months. Not to mention the cost of increasing insurance because of the events. None of this includes the cost of rising oceans levels. You must have failed accounting 101.

              Cheap coal plants my ass. You have the wrong website. You must be looking for the Tverberg school of nonsense. Your hypocrisy is unbelievable. The truth is humanity can’t afford to burn coal to produce electricity. It’s a loose, loose. Just like Trump, you won’t be here to see the most of the damage of your bullshit. The point is on the top of your aluminium smelter head.

              Your problem is the greatest energy source on earth is free. Efficiently using it is the challenge. Burning a finite polluting resource is something mice would do, not those with grey matter between their ears. The definition of addiction is continuing to do something that you know is harmful to yourself.

            4. Hey Hideaway,

              That was an interesting article in Mongabay that you linked, thanks.

              Note that I wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing with your repeated refrain. Bob posted a fascinating article citing Tinto’s support for large scale renewable plus batteries for some of its aluminum smelting operations. After your reply about subsidies influencing the financial economics of this decision, I was simply asking if you had insights about the underlying financial arrangements of what you were arguing for the specific site that Tinto is advancing in this manner. Sounds like the answer is no.

              I’m not surprised. Headlines about jobs created or retained are much more attractive to politicians than the details of how economic development deals are subsidized. And of course that entirely leaves out the externalized costs as HB points out.

            5. Huntingtonbeach, you don’t get it at all do you. I understand and agree with most of your points about how dirty, polluting and climate changing burning coal is..

              However it’s how we built and maintained our modern civilization, by not accounting for the environmental damage burning fossil fuels caused, expecting the natural world to just absorb it. Plus of course it’s getting more expensive to do, by having to dig deeper for the best coal seems and often transport it further..

              None of this changes the reality that coal is our cheapest form of energy to produce Aluminium in an economic sense, which is why captive coal power plants are being built to manufacture the materials needed for the ‘renewables’ cheaply, in places like Indonesia, while no-one anywhere is building an off grid Aluminium smelter based on solar, wind and batteries alone. It’s just too expensive economically.

              Here is the problem, if we were to build all Aluminium smelters off renewables exclusively, the cost of Aluminium would go through the roof, causing solar panels to become way more expensive, likewise for aluminium EV panels.

              All renewables are only as ‘cheap’ as they are because they are made with cheap fossil fuels.
              Our civilization is based upon using cheap energy which we’ve had an abundance of for 200 years, providing we don’t count the environmental costs. Now we’ve reached the stage where gathering the materials for our civilization is a lot more expensive in energy terms because of lower ore grades, diminishing returns on efficiency gains etc, so it takes an increasing amount of energy to gain access to minerals and metals we require, which is predominantly fossil fuels energy.

              Any system of “new” energy that totally relies upon falling grades is clearly not sustainable as we always lose some to entropy and dissipation, in any attempt at recycling or a circular economy.

              Modern civilization is simply not sustainable by any method and our attempts to continue, just make the collapse of it all much worse when it happens, because of further damage to the climate, environment and other species.

            6. HIDEAWAY
              If solar, wind and batteries were indeed cheaper options than coal fired power for entities like Aluminium smelters, the businesses would make their own decision to go off-grid with their own power supply based on these renewables.

              The “off grid” claim is a non sequitur. There is no reason to equate renewables with going off grid. But I’ll address the rest of your remark.

              When a new technology gets introduced the same argument always comes up:

              Contra: If it’s so good, why didn’t my granddad use it?
              Pro: OMG! Usage has increased 100% in the last year!

              Both of these arguments are flawed. So how can you judge how likely it is for a new tech to be adopted?

              The answer is in niches. New technologies do not spread evenly into a market, slowly increasing percentage of the general demand. They seep into the market by filling more and more niche applications, the way floodwaters fill the low points while the high ground remains dry.

              The problem with your argument is that it claims (somewhat dubiously, but whatever) that the high ground is dry. Then you go on to claim that since the high ground is dry, the low ground must also be dry. And of course you choose the highest high ground you can think of, aluminum smelting, thinking it strengthens your argument, when it actually weakens it.

              You aren’t alone pushing this fallacy. Vaclav Smil, for example, claims that since supertankers use huge diesel motors, EV can never replace diesel cars.

              In fact, choosing the most extreme niche where a new tech might not work as an argument against the new tech is implicit admitting that it will work in other niches.

              To see whether a technology will spread, check to see whether it is spreading to more niches. Lithium ion batteries spread from wrist watches to portable electronics to power tools and so on in the course of the last fifty years. Currently there is little reason to see the stop of this spread.

            7. GoAway,

              Don’t tell me I don’t F’ning “get it”. Your the one who wants to live in your childhood past thinking life to be sustainable. It never was and never will be. Grow up and face the challenge of life and death. You have been repeating your selfish lazy crap here like a dementia patient for a long time. Life is not about sitting on the couch repeating the same old woe is me (Nothing I can do about it shit).

              I would hate to see the home you live in, because you don’t account for the waste you want to produce (Why should I try to clean it up because I’m going to shit again tomorrow). Your all in on enjoying your ancestors hard work and progress to a modern civilized society. You just don’t want to contribute to the next generation. You prefer to live in your childhood ignorance.

              There is always room for efficiency and less waste.

            8. Alimbiquated,
              You miss the point that they are building the captive coal power plants, meaning pretty much off grid or setting up a local grid to supply Aluminium smelters and nickel processing/refineries in Indonesia, so it’s possible with cheap, local, coal fired electricity.

              All you have to do is work out how much it would cost to replace the build of a 1.1Gw coal fired power station and Aluminium smelter, by using solar, wind and batteries, compared to the $2B it’s costing Adaro to build using coal fired power..

              We only get cheap Aluminium by using the cheapest methods to produce it, which helps keep the costs of Aluminium framed solar panels cheaper than they would otherwise be.

              Instead of an offgrid coal power plant and smelter, the cost of an off grid solar and batteries (poor wind resource there, but good solar on the equator), would be in excess of $20B, with the operating and maintenance costs of the solar and battery power plant exceeding the operating and maintenance costs of providing coal fuel to the power plant via conveyor belts and electrically driven shovels/excavators at the coal mine sitting next door to the coal power plant…

              The cost of money alone would negate anyone bothering to build an off grid aluminium smelter based on solar, wind and batteries alone, but the economics stack up for coal fired power.
              The revenue from a 500,000t/a aluminium smelter is at current aluminium prices around $1.35B/yr. The cost of money at 6% interest is around $150M for the $2B coal/smelter option while it would be $1.5B.yr for the solar, batteries/smelter option. (with expected blackouts if solar was constrained by more than 3 days because of cloudy weather).

              It’s clear that none of the cornucopians want to look at the realities of the nitty gritty of the proposed future, assuming everything will work out fine, providing the govts provide enough money subsidies for ‘green tech’, while ignoring resource limitations and competition for that money/energy/material resources for all other purposes.

        4. Hideaway

          I did catch your references in the prior thread (from SINTEF). Aluminum is very energy intensive to produce, and to change anodes from coke based (coal) is probably not worth it. The production process will use fossil fuels mainly in the smelting process (etc. to alumina), but a very high amount of electricity is needed in the end to produce aluminium due to the electrolysis technology. If the analysis did stop there; aluminium would not be that great overall.

          The main selling points for aluminium is that bauxite needed to make alumina is aboundant globally. In addition the energy needed to produce primary aluminium can be based on renewable electricity, and to be realistic bring it down to the level of the metallurgical processes for other common metals. Still, aluminium is one of the most recycle friendly metals around with the 660 degree melting point. The metal serves very good as an electricity conductor, just not as good as copper and also when it comes to bendability and sometimes longevity. A great strength/weight ratio just overcome by carbon fiber, which by the way is very carbon intensive to produce. Bear in mind that aluminium doesn’t rust, it corrodes instead if conditions let it to do so.

          There is still a strong case for aluminium as critical for the energy transition, no matter if some SINTEF scientist explores the viability of net zero polices for anodes in 2019.

          That coal has replaced hydro as the main energy resource for aluminium and Rio Tinto even finds that transmission and storage options are good enough to rely on renewables as the preferred electricity source in Queensland – it tells me that aluminium is a key metal going forward (primary or recycled).

          1. From memory, could be wrong, it takes 14 kWhs to produce 1 kg of aluminium but only 1 kWh to recycle/remake it to something else. So once you´ve made it, reuse it.
            (the ratio is 14:1 at least, that I´m quite sure of even if it´s not per kg)

          2. Aluminum smelting also emits a lot of carbon dioxide regardless of energy source. The emissions come from the reaction between aluminum oxide and carbon anodes. Basically the oxygen is removed from aluminum oxide by attaching it to carbon atoms.

            There are some experimental methods of smelting aluminum that are less energy intensive. The most promising so far is the Alcoa method, which uses an inert anode. It is more complicated and uses chlorine gas, which has to be recycled. It also emits carbon dioxide, but so concentrated that carbon capture should be feasible.

        5. Hideaway
          Perhaps you should learn about material science before you make such a ridiculous statement.
          Aluminum is very commonly used for long-distance electricity transmission lines. It has become the standard material for overhead power lines because it is cheaper, lighter and more resistant to corrosion than copper.

          https://peakdemand.com/types-of-conductors-used-in-overhead-power-lines/

          https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/power-cables-how-much-copper-and-aluminium/

          It s also used in transformers.

          https://www.wilsonpowersolutions.co.uk/copper-vs-aluminium/

  4. Getting off fossil fuels, seems unlikely, at least on near term

    TRUMP’S ‘DRILL, BABY, DRILL’ AGENDA COULD KEEP THE WORLD HOOKED ON OIL AND GAS

    “Donald Trump’s repeated mantra of “drill, baby, drill” demands that more oil and gas be extracted in the United States, but the president has set his sights on an even broader goal: keeping the world hooked on planet-heating fossil fuels for as long as possible. In deals being formulated with countries such as Japan and Ukraine, Trump is using US leverage in tariffs and military aid to bolster the flow of oil and gas around the world. In Africa, his administration has even touted the resurrection of coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, to bring energy to the continent.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/12/trump-fossil-fuels-oil-and-gas

    1. Meanwhile,

      Latest Daily CO2
      Mar. 10, 2025 = 430.19 ppm
      Mar. 10, 2024 = 425.10 ppm
      1 Year Change = 5.09 ppm (1.20%)

      1. The funniest part about these continual shitposts is that the computer resources needed to keep all your posts up on the internet forever contribute to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Through your posts, you’ll be contributing to CO2 even after you are dead!

    2. By definition modern homosaps requires fossil fuels, no hooks or addiction description applies. The issue is how much and so far it’s as much as we can afford.

      1. It is a relatively big problem that so many comments here, intended to show that we will and must live blissfully in this world of perpetual growth consuming perpetually increasing amounts of ffs, are really showing us that it is either change or become extinct.
        It is a choice.

    1. Robert Morris, Texas megachurch pastor and former Trump adviser, indicted for child sex crimes

    1. Slippery slope #2
      Disobeying court orders:
      Court order “Turn the plane around
      Trump “no”
      If you wonder why Trump has a picture of Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office, it is probably because he wants to emulate Jackson’s response to an order from the Supreme Court to respect Cherokee lands, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it”.
      Trump cares nothing about the Constitution.

      1. I expect Trump may have heard of Andrew Jackson, and might have heard a few words spoken of him, but he has no guiding mechanisms at all beyond his malignant narcissism. Pay back means more to him than pay up.

  7. Florida mayor seeks to evict cinema for showing Oscar-winning documentary

    I guess it is Florida?

    1. Meanwhile, US national debt soars, currently standing at $36.6 trillion.

    1. Democratic Rep. Larson yells at GOP colleagues as Musk’s testimony gets blocked

      Mar 12, 2025
      Rep. John B. Larson (CT-01) called out his Republican colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee before they voted to block his Resolution of Inquiry into the Trump-Musk plan to gut Social Security.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW0ZyiNER4

      Finally !!!!! Someone telling exactly how all of us Americans are feeling, good for you sir, bravo!!!!!

      JEEZUS…FINALLY! It’s about damned time someone said exactly this. This needs to be aired relentlessly on a loop on whatever network still cares.

      I HAVE NOT HEARD A SPEECH THIS INSPIRING IN YEARS

      Arrington where is your outrage over Tax payer dollars going to fund Trumps golf outings? You totally missed Larsons point about you letting Musk and Trump usurp your power, instead you parrot Musk tweets and never address how you are now longer working for your constituents as Larson clearly articulated.

        1. —while the Dow may be down 2,537 points, you can’t blame Trump. He’s been golfing a lot lately. He must think a negative number is a good one.

          1. Tesla down 5% more today after being down 5% yesterday. Oh, Elon bankruptcy is Trumps expertise. He who laughs last, laughs best.

            Soon Elon will figure out he is the Trump fall guy.

            Who wants to drive the new swastika symbol ?

    1. Yes, back in January. A good argument for using CATL/BYD’s less-flammable LFP grid storage batteries…

    1. Thanks John. I saw that opinion piece. I’m not too impressed with his ‘analysis’ of the industry.
      Time will tell if his pessimism is justified. Compared to him you would call me optimistic, which is a title that is rarely applied to me.
      It will probably be about ten years before we have a good handle on the industry outlook, which will hinge largely on costs of large scale operations since no technological breakthroughs or resource discoveries are part of the equation.

      Here is a ‘Volts’ podcast from last month- Catching up with Enhanced Geothermal
      https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/catching-up-with-enhanced-geothermal/id1548554104?i=1000691502024
      or wherever you get podcasts. Gives a good picture of the work being done.

      1. John Norris

        I think that this assessment is realistic if not a bit optimistic. Geothermal is not a new phenomena. It has been around a long time. Years ago my birth city had a project to heat the municipal buildings. It was a failure.

        The main point that most observers miss is the thermodynamic efficiency which is low often 10% at best for power production. To obtain work (power) there has to be a driving force, and for electricity production that requires superheated steam. Geothermal produces mainly hot water under pressure/ Obviously above ground the hot water can produce flashed steam at a lower pressure to the water. The flashed steam will contain some superheat, and can be used to drive a turbine. The produced water has to be replaced one way or another and usually this is an injector well, which has a decent interval between the producer well.
        There are some sites such as Iceland where the conditions are such that hot water can be extracted favourably, but the same thermodynamic principles apply.
        Geothermal is better suited to district heating systems, with or without heat pumps.
        This is why the production of power by geothermal is low and will remain so. It is a niche application.
        The age old adage. If it were any good we would already be using it en masse.
        The same applies to wind and solar. They are really niche applications that produce intermittent power that has to be supported by costly power electronics, storage batteries, extensive grid upgrades, and back up thermal power plants, and where available hydro.

          1. Hickory,

            How about learning the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics and then apply them to a steam turbine.
            Then you can lecture me, but to date you cannot even understand the 1st law.

            1. You are old to know that if you have nothing useful to say then it is better just to keep quiet. Many people also thought that fracking or electric transportation would not be viable techniques.

              When you get a chance check out what these new efforts are working on. I think they have a fair chance of optimizing a system that will be a good long term alternative to simply burning coal.
              Here is a link to that interview that you can listen to on your computer (or phone)-
              https://www.volts.wtf/p/catching-up-with-enhanced-geothermal

            2. Carnot
              You’re experiencing the basic principle of democracy. Which is the delusional belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. Sorry to say Hickory has more who believe what he does. Ignorance is strength. Don’t ever question it.

            3. You guys should try to realize that this is not my project. Try to pretend that its not about me, rather lets try to be objective about the subject matter regardless of who brings it to the table. This isn’t some sort of emotional pissing contest, or partisan issue.
              You guys guys should find the idea of drilling for energy at least a little bit intriguing I would think….worth considering and exploring.

              Regardless, the outcome on it matters not a speck what any of us here have to say about it.

  12. The new normal in this Kleptocracy-
    “Trump has signed executive orders that benefit the industry and has pledged to help push through legislation that the industry favors. At the same time, he has existing interests in other crypto ventures that benefit if the value of digital assets rise…”

    “The discussions thus far with Binance have included a Trump family stake in Binance’s US arm, according to the Wall Street Journal, which reported that former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao is also seeking a pardon from the administration. In 2023, Zhao pleaded guilty to violating US anti-money-laundering requirements.”
    “Bloomberg reported that the conversations included the possibility of a stablecoin from Binance and World Liberty Financial, a crypto business with ties to the Trump family. Stablecoins are pegged to other assets, such as the dollar.”

  14. This morning I was looking for data on the outlook for increased oil output based on Trump’s efforts to push us back to total reliance on fossil fuels and was surprised to see that all of the forecasts I could find were predicting a peak around 2030 based on an increase in renewables reducing demand.
    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230726-an-experts-guide-to-peak-oil-and-what-it-really-means
    Do we now see “infinite” growth possibility in oil production?

  15. I think the risk to US stocks probably has a couple more weeks to run. Any bounce here likely gets sold as the biggest buyers of stocks which is the companies themselves are going into a blackout period until the end of March.

    So going into the end of the quarter they won’t be in the market doing stock buybacks.

    But come April the companies will be back in the market doing buybacks which will spark upside momentum which the CTA’s will chase.

  16. Trump’s crackdown on “illegal” immigrants is sweeping up the wrong people.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/03/16/mass-deportation-ice-detains-non-criminals/82304354007/?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

    Excerpt:

    But last month, on their way home to Wisconsin after honeymooning in Puerto Rico, an immigration agent pulled Muñoz aside in the airport.

    “Are you an American citizen?” asked the agent. She answered no, she wasn’t. She’s from Peru. But she and her husband had taken the legal steps so that one day she might get U.S. citizenship.

    These types of cases are ridiculous.

    1. DC
      “wrong people” by whose definition?
      For Trump it just doesn’t matter. His objective is to get as much press as possible for rounding up “enemies” regardless of who they are or why they are here. I think Trump and his fervent supporters think that any publicized deportation is proof of his success as a strong leader. As of today his approval rating is at a new high.

      1. JJHMan,

        A lot of people who voted for Trump, didn’t think deporting a person who is in the process of getting a green card with no criminal record and who is married to an American citizen was a likely scenario.

        Did you read the USA Today piece?

        Sure there are knuckleheads who think everyone with a different last name than theirs should be deported.

        Many of them voted for Trump, but I think they are in the minority.

        As these stories become well known and businesses start to recognize that the rule of law is being shredded by the Trump administration maybe some will have the backbone to speak truth to power. Or maybe a few Republicans will stand up for the Constitution. It will take impeachment and removal from office by the Senate when Trump defies the Supreme Court to solve this problem.

        In the mean time cuts in government services will start to hit Republican States and Trump’s popularity will wane.

        1. DC
          I already see some evidence that the cutbacks are starting to hurt red states and voters are complaining. What I haven’t seen is evidence that there is enough pain that his polling is starting to drop.
          Trump’s coalition has a lot of parts to it and I think he spends time nurturing it. It includes a lot of folks who are racists down to their sox, some very aggressively and probably a lot more who instinctively are comfortable with making the world better for white people without thinking much about it. All of this anti-DEA action and hysterical deportation sits well with both.
          Whether the economic fallout will ever be painful enough to weaken his voter base is not yet clear.
          And the damage continues.

  17. Figures showing the extent of human overshoot.
    Humans and our livestock make up more than 96% of mammal mass on the planet

        1. I removed the ocean mammals and did the math:

          ……………. Mass in Million Tons % of Total
          Humans+Livestock 1020 0.980769231
          Livestock Only …….. 630 ……..0.605769231
          Humans Only …….. 390 ……..0.375
          Wild Land Animals 20 ……..0.019230769
          Total Land Mammals 1040

          Total wild terrestrial wild animals are less than two percent of total mass. Humans and their domesticated animals are over 98% of the total mass.

          1. I got a glimpse of overpopulation up close while visiting Hanoi about 20 years ago. In the street markets even the littlest snails from the surrounding farmlands were for sale. Protein is relatively scarce in zones like this. Almost all larger wild animals from the hinterlands have already been eaten.
            I saw 50 year old adults who were all around 4’10”, male and female, who were so poor that they had never been in a hole in the wall restaurant before. From the same family their younger relatives who were born and raised in the US were over 6′!

            1. Hickory —
              I spent a fair amount of time in Viet Nam as an exploration geologist. When I asked my hosts what snakes looked like that I should be afraid was told: “snakes, if you see one let us know so we can eat it but you won’t because we already ate all of them.”

  18. More great news on the climate change front.

    CLIMATE CHANGE ‘WILL ACCELERATE’ OWING TO DECLINE IN NATURAL CARBON STORAGE

    The natural process of locking away carbon dioxide (CO2) appears to be in decline—and climate change will accelerate as a result, a University of Strathclyde study warns. Researchers found that the levels of CO2 retained in vegetation through this process, which is known as sequestration, had been increasing at 0.8% per year in the 1960s, but peaked in 2008 and are now falling at 0.25% per year.

    https://phys.org/news/2025-03-climate-owing-decline-natural-carbon.html

    1. Meanwhile,

      TRUMP PLEDGES A U.S. COAL RENAISSANCE

      “President Donald Trump is authorizing the Administration to work to boost U.S. coal power generation in an effort to counter China’s economic advantage over America due to the constant rise in Chinese coal power plants.
      “After years of being held captive by Environmental Extremists, Lunatics, Radicals, and Thugs, allowing other Countries, in particular China, to gain tremendous Economic advantage over us by opening up hundreds of all Coal Fire Power Plants, I am authorizing my Administration to immediately begin producing Energy with BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL,” President Trump wrote on social media platform Truth Social.”

      https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Trump-Pledges-a-US-Coal-Renaissance.html

  19. How to burn £20,000 + in 3 years

    https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?advertising-location=at_cars&homeDeliveryAdverts=include&make=Tesla&model=Model%20Y&postcode=Ch44%203au&price-to=27500&sort=relevance&year-from=2022&year-to=2022

    Buy a new Tesla for £45,000 and sell it 3 years later for £20,000 to a dealer who tries to sell it for £25,000.

    Or you can buy an Audi S line for £49,000 and sell it 3 years later for £28,000 less.

    Or buy a cheap Vauxhall corsa e for £28,000 a still lose £20,000 3 years later.

    People are starting to realise buying electric may save £2,000 on fuel costs but costs a world more when you sell it. Not many people can afford to lose £20,000 in 3 years. That is the equivalent of our home fuel bills for 7 years.

    1. Loadsofoil,

      Do you buy a new car every 3 years? If I buy a new vehicle I keep it for at least 10 years. In the case of evs costs have been coming down, so early adopters take a bigger hit on depreciation due to the falling cost of new EVs.
      For my Model 3 the car has depreciated about 25k over 6.5 years or about 3850 per year. About 3000 dollars in net fuel costs were saved where I live, note also that the depreciation on a 2013 Toyota Camry Hybrid I owned from 2013 to 2022 was about 22000, or $2444 per year, about $1400 less than the Model 3. So the net loss on the Model 3 was about $938 per year compared to the Camry Hybrid (the model 3 probably won’t depreciate as much over the next 2.5 years compared to the first 6.5 years.) Note that the Camry XLE Hybrid I owned was nice, but the Model 3 Long Range AWD I own is a far nicer car. I would never buy another Tesla, even though the car is pretty nice as I no longer trust Musk.

      1. Dennis

        You are making out I am misrepresenting these figures, that is why I

        If everyone was like you car companies would go bust.
        If everyone was like you car company sales would fall 40% or more, most would not survive.

        The average time an owner keeps a new car is 4 years, this ensures car companies can survive. It is not true that electric cars are becoming cheaper they are still way more expensive than the equivalent mileage ice car. Saying something again and again does not make it true.
        What you fail to understand is most people do take into account the amount of money lost on their new car.

        You don’t like 3 year depreciation, ok let’s take 5 years. A 5 year electric Hyundai will lose about £33,000.
        One great drawback of an electric car is charging, if you are one of the only 40% who have off street parking that is easy enough and relatively cheap. If you have to charge at a public charger it is as expensive as petrol mile for mile. I get a mile for 14 pence.

        https://www.carwow.co.uk/blog/how-much-to-charge-an-electric-car?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_account=6984742135&utm_campaign=18454974863&utm_group=&utm_keyword=&device=c&campaignid=18454974863&adgroupid=&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADkNbBXm7H7ux_Do5qTDpZk24tLY5&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIiqab1tWVjAMVe5RQBh2xYibpEAAYAyAAEgJ3RfD_BwE

        Once most people with driveways have an electric sales will level off, I don’t know anyone with an electric car who lives in a flat or house with no front garden.

        1. It might be too early to make long term judgements about the relative cost of gas vs electric cars. There are just too many factors involved:
          -EVs are on a steep learning curve. Every one has a lot more engineering and startup cost than the old technology.
          -Making equivalent comparisons is almost impossible because sellers will focus on upscale models because it is easier to hide the above costs.
          -EVs are still a novelty so the average buyer is likely willing to pay a little more for the novelty.
          -Depreciation is higher because more buyers end up disappointed with concerns they never had with IC cars such as longer charge times and shorter range.
          I think the market was dead wrong in skipping past plug-in hybrids and going to pure EVs before the infrastructure was committed. But that’s where we are.
          What is really the argument here actually? Is it that we shouldn’t go to EVs, that we can’t or about whether we should be doing it differently?
          As far as I’m concerned the only debate is the last one. That is; we need to do this and how can we do it better?
          Everything else is either wishful nostalgia or lying to protect a dying oil industry unless your entire frame of reference is shorter than ten years.

          1. As most readers here should know, I follow the markets for EVs very closely, not just in my home market but globally. One of the websites that I rely on heavily is:

            https://cleantechnica.com/tag/ev-sales/

            My sense is that in 2025 EVs are starting to leave the early adopter market and head into the mainstream. The primary reason for this is that more and more EVs are reaching purchase cost parity with equivalent vehicles equipped with an ICE. Readers in the US will have a skewed view of things because they are largely insulated from what is happening outside of the US, particularly in China.

            I want to start by looking at three of the best selling cars in Japan, the Toyota Probox, the Toyota Corolla Axio and the Toyota Fielder (station wagon version of the Axio). Jamaica has relied heavily on the used Japanese domestic market to supply decent quality, affordable cars to the market here, making up some 80% of vehicle imports. As a result these models are also among the best selling models in Jamaica despite the fact that the local Toyota dealer does NOT sell them (new or used). Here are two articles about these vehicles in their home market:

            https://www.motor1.com/news/750995/toyota-killing-10000-dollar-corolla/
            https://www.motor1.com/news/751553/toyota-probox-10000-dollars-japan/

            Now let’s skip on over to China and take a look at the market there. Here is the Clean Technica report on car sales in China for February 2025:

            https://cleantechnica.com/2025/03/19/50-plugin-vehicle-market-share-in-china-february-2025-sales-report:

            https://cleantechnica.com/2025/03/19/50-plugin-vehicle-market-share-in-china-february-2025-sales-report/

            Six of the top seven best selling cars in China in February were either plug-in hybrids or fully electric, with 4 of them being fully electric, two starting at less than US$10,000 and the Wuling Mini EV starting at less than US$5,000 (2,850 USD with a leased battery option). Battery prices have fallen steeply over the past couple of years but, the prices have further to fall. It is quite likely that the prices will continue to decline ans along with them the prices of EVs. Here is an article about a vehicle I see as a potential Toyota Probox killer:

            https://insideevs.com/news/736266/wuling-gm-electric-mpv-cheap/

            Now this vehicle has several disadvantages over the Probox, primarily a range of only 124 miles on a charge but, this is the 2025 model. What will the situation be after two more years of battery price declines and technology improvements?

            Speaking of technology improvements, this news has been al the rage in the EV press for the past couple of days:

            As Tesla Falters, China’s BYD Pulls Ahead With 5-Minute EV Charging

            The story even made it to Reuters:

            https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/chinas-byd-unveils-faster-charging-ev-platform-aims-build-over-4000-charging-2025-03-17/

            The way I see things, the way things are going, EVs are going to reach purchase price parity with ICE across all market segments over the next couple of years and then beyond that EVs are going to cost less than an equivalent vehicle equipped with an ICE. When you add 5 minute charging to the mix what will be the point of adding the expense and complexity of a hybrid to the mix?

  20. “Minnesota state Sen. Justin Eichorn (R) was arrested on suspicion of soliciting a minor for sex, the Minnesota Reformer reports.”

    Some our Repug friends have sexual issues

  22. “Trump’s descent into dictatorship continues unabated. The losers today are not only American consumers. They are all of us who care about American democracy.”

    Germany got through this in the 30’s and 40’s.
    We will probably also

    1. Don’t forget: millions died, and the reason they came back to democracy was that the allies took over at the end of World War II and forced them to.

      1. LLOYD
        There may be no entity on the planet than can do this for the US short of killing us all and plowing our merciless culture into the ground and salting the fields.

    1. As an australian, I’m not worried. I’m sure trump can make a deal between the us, china and australia – just like between the the us, russia, and ukrania /sarc

Comments are closed.