116 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, May 20, 2024”

    1. Thanks OFM, a good read. Reminds me of Survivalist’s worrying phrase: “multiple breadbasket failures”

  2. Ignore this comment if you have money. Read it for insight the way the insurance industry works if you don’t.
    And …
    If you don’t money….. it might save you a few thousand.

    The total costs of repairing vehicles damaged in accidents has risen to the point that literally millions of cars and trucks are written off as ” totalled” when they’re still in perfectly satisfactory condition, other than cosmetic considerations. Millions more need only rather minor repairs, to be roadworthy if not pretty.

    If you need a cheap car or truck, you may be able to locate one of these vehicles before it winds up in the hands of the insurance company.

    I just bought a pickup truck with a big dent in the cargo box that means less than nothing to me, for use as a work truck. All my friends and family know I’m solvent, own the house, farm, etc. As far as strangers are concerned, I could care less, lol.

    I got the truck for about one third it’s actual value, at the cost of filling out a couple of extra forms at DMV, which will hold up getting it registered a couple of weeks. The trick was finding out about it before the owner signed away his ownership to the insurance company.

    If you have such a vehicle, you may want to take the check, minus the reputed scrap value, and keep it, and advertise it for sale. If the insurance company is offering you say two thousand for it, they may offer you eight hundred if you want to keep it. You can probably sell it as is in a weekend for double that, if it’s legally drive able as it sits.

    I post this comment not because most of the regulars here need to keep so close an eye on their money, but for insight into some of the ways the “system” fails to work. In this case, it enables insurance companies, working hand in hand with the salvage vehicle and scrap industries, to make a ton of money at the expense of insurance customers.

  3. The US income tax rates changes dramatically after 1980, in many cases the laws failed to adjust tax brackets for inflation as is done today in the US annually by law.

    Using the 1954 tax brackets and adjusting to 2023$ using the PCE price index used by the Fed (these remained in place from 1954 to 1962 without adjusting for inflation over those years) they were as follows for a Married couple filing jointly for 1954:

    $0 – 20%
    $34,517 – 22%
    $69,034 – 26%
    $103,550 – 30%
    $138,067 – 34%
    $172,584 – 38%
    $207,101 – 43%
    $241,618 – 47%
    $276,134 – 50%
    $310,651 – 53%
    $345,168 – 56%
    $379,685 – 59%
    $448,718 – 62%
    $552,269 – 65%
    $655,819 – 69%
    $759,370 – 72%
    $862,920 – 75%
    $1,035,504 – 78%
    $1,208,088 – 81%
    $1,380,672 – 84%
    $1,553,256 – 87%
    $1,725,840 – 89%
    $2,588,760 – 90%
    $3,451,680 – 91%

    Note these have been adjusted to 2023 $ the top bracket was $400,000 in 1954$ which is $3,451,680 in 2023$.

    It would reduce inequality if we returned to this level of progressive taxation and also treated long term capital gains and dividends as ordinary income taxed at these rates, no special treatment of investment income of any kind.

    1. Only we don’t have a taxation problem. We have a spending problem. Redistribution doesn’t work.

      Redistribution doesn’t create more goods and services. It only allows people to live beyond their means. Using up resources that wouldn’t otherwise have been used.

      UBI will also create more economic stress than it cures. And allows people to consume when they otherwise wouldn’t be able to.

      What we need is less consumption. Not more by giving away free money.

      1. HHH,

        Taxes can be used for public investment, education, and research, human capital investment can yield excellent results. Much of the excess consumption is by wealthy individuals, high income tax rates were in place from 1936 to 1980 in the US with the highest marginal rate at 70% to 91% over that period (it dropped to 70% from 1965 to 1980.) When rates were higher the distribution of income was less unequal in the US.

        You may believe that greed is good, I would disagree.

        The wealthy always claim redistribution is bad, I wonder why.

        1. I guessing you’re not a fan of capitalism?

          It doesn’t really matter which ism you are under. Be it capitalism, socialism, communism or any other ism.

          It’s the monetary system that is the problem. Because no matter what ism you reside under. Money is lent into existence with an interest expense attached to it.

          Which means there is never enough money to pay the debts. Never ending growth is required to service the debt.

          The demand for currency units to service the debts are greater than the sum of currency units available to service the debt.

          Rich people already pay all the taxes. You can tax them at 100% and it wouldn’t even come close to covering the spending.

          You’re already aware that the money supply is shrinking within the boards of the US. But the dollar supply outside the US is also in contraction. There is in fact about 5 times the amount of dollar denominated debt outside the US as there is inside the US.

          China has been selling a record amount of US treasury debt. Why? Because they have a dollar shortage.

          2. It doesn’t matter ! Cash is opportunity. Money is just a means of exchange and only worth what someone will give you for it. Labor is a resource used to add value. If there wasn’t a “dollar shortage”, it would have no value and runaway inflation.

            Capitalism and free markets without regulations is just a basic form of slavery. The haves will take advantage the have-nots. Jamie Dimon isn’t worth $36 million a year and his tellers $36 thousand a year. Jamie needs and should pay a lot more in taxes. The military budget doesn’t protect the poor, it protects the rich. Don’t drink the Kool-aid.

            A broken clock is correct twice a day. Still waiting for $25 oil.

            1. The last time the yield curve was inverted for 570 or more days was around 1929. I’m also still waiting for it to un-invert.

              And like you said I’ll be right it’s just a waiting game.

          3. HHH,

            Have you ever eaten money? Money is simply a token. Capitalism existed in the US from 1936 to 1980, but no I am not a fan of the capitalist system and what it has become over the 1981 to 2024 period, it is a social and environmental disaster which is likely to lead to a collapse, a better system is needed, more similar to what exists in Scandanavia, but perhaps those systems before they were influenced by neoliberal ideology after 1980, maybe more similar to what existed from 1960 to 1980 in those nations.

    2. It’s also a strong disincentive to work. Why not just cut to the chase with UBI?

      1. Think about what UBI looks like during an energy crunch. Demand for energy needs to come down to match supply.

        Giving a bunch of people money that they didn’t earn isn’t the answer. Just look at the aftermath of the pandemic free money giveaway. It didn’t solve inequality. It made prices go way higher creating more inequality.

        1. HHH,

          Inflation was a worldwide problem with inflation in the US similar to other OECD nations, it was a global supply disruption and had very little to do with government fiscal or monetary policy. Inequality actually did improve during the pandemic in the US with the policies enacted improving income for less wealthy families.

          Also, much of investment income (which is the bulk of wealthy income) is not “earned”, it is money for nothing and should be taxed at high rates not given preferential treatment.

          Conservatives often harken back to the good old days of the 1950s in the US when Ike was president.

          I suggest we go back to the tax rates of those years with the brackets adjusted for inflation using the PCE index, except capital gains should also be taxed as ordinary income as this has over history been a tax loophole for the wealthy.

      2. UBI doesn’t make much sense in a society where you can go bankrupt from events like you car breaking down getting sick. It also wouldn’t cover higher education bills.

        1. Alimibiquated,

          Higher tax rates could pay for healthcare, childcare, as well as public investment in public transportation, charging infrastructure, education (perhaps free university and/or trade school education), and research. The US could do much better with enlightened policy that relegates neoliberal ideology to the dustbin of history.

          1. Dennis —
            The idea that America needs higher taxes to improve health care, child care and public transportation isn’t really correct.

            Healthcare: Theere are two big problems in the American healchare system (besides to pointless connection between employment and coverage):

            First, providers are paid to treat patients instead of being paid to cure them. Say you go get a knee operation for $27,000. Three weeks later it turns out the operation was a failure, so you go in again. Brace yourself for another $27,000 bill.

            Some years ago I worked on a software project with some of the biggest healthcare providers in America called “True Cost”. The project never really reached its goal.

            Say an overweight 37 year old male smoker comes to the emergency room with severe abdominal pain. The doctor diagnoses appendicitis. The patient states he has a penicillin allergy. How much will it cost to cure (not treat, cure) him? Your healthcare provider does not know, and neither does your health insurance company.

            Second: The patinet, not the payer, is the fall guy. As I mentioned in reference to universal basic income, there is no way for individuals to pay for healthcare disasters. Insurance is a must. But market economics only works when the provider and the payer negotiate terms. In the present system, more often than not, the patient gets screwed by the healthcare provider and the insurer, so neither party has an incentive to control costs.

            If the US introduced universal, mandatory, no-fault cure-based health insurance, an ungodly war would break out between healthcare providers and insurers, and costs would fall dramatically. No tax dollars needed, just a properly regulated market. The current “system” is amateurish bullshit that causes tens of thousands of premature deaths every year. Obamacare was a start, but needs updating.

            Transportation has similar problems: America needs to recognize that 80% of the population is urban and that cars are nearly useless for moving people around cities. In addition, America’s bizarre restrictions on land use need to be completely rethought. If you can’t walk to the grocery store or your favorite bar, your city is broken, and deregulation could fix it.

            America needs to drastically cut spending on roads and spend the money on transportation systems that actually make economic sense.

            1. Alimbiquated,

              The US needs an improved healthcare system, I am not an expert on healthcare policy so will not pretend to be, many nations have a national healthcare system and I imagine there are pros and cons to each of them. I am also not an expert on transportation systems, it would seem a high cost to register heavy duty vehicles would help offset some of the road costs as heavy vehicles do the most damage to roads, I imagine an odometer reading to judge miles travelled and gross vehicle weight would be enough to estimate the damage done by a vehicle over the past year, they could be billed when they register their car or truck. I agree better public transport and perhaps fewer paved roads would be a good thing, but it is up to citizens to elect officials that will endorse such a policy.

              I would note that you didn’t cover childcare at all, your solution, also I mentioned education and you did not, so I guess on that you might agree.

              Note also that part of the reason to raise taxes on tose with higher income is to reduce wealth inequality, also a possibility is a wealth tax for the same purpose. Extreme wealth inequality increases social tension and reduces trust in government which makes it difficult to enact needed changes in policy. The incremental change mantra sounds nice, but it has been ineffective for the past 52 years, it is time for a different approach.

              https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/earth4all-trebeck-wellbeing-economy/

            2. Dennis —
              I agree that the tax system needs to be a lot more progressive. The Reaganites got it 100% backwards — tax cuts for the rich don’t stimulate the economy because they hoard money. Poor people stimulate the economy immediately when they get cash.

              I think your remarks about democracy are a bit naive. Be that as it may, there is no question that America has made some terrible choices in recent decades.

              Check out what Chuck Marohn has to say.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOmI46ajV-s&ab_channel=MichaelJanz%7CWardpapastew%7CEdmonton

              It’s a long video, but worth it.

            3. Alimbiquated,

              Oh perhaps suggesting that people will choose good representatives is naive. The reality is that representative democracy is the worst possible form of government, except it is better in my view than any alternative in the current world as it exists. We could hope for some other reality or take action to create a new reality. I choose the latter. I didn’t watch the video, sorry.

            4. Dennis —
              The reality is that representative democracy is the worst possible form of government

              I’m not saying that democracy is a bad form of government, I’m just saying that it doesn’t guarantee a good outcome, or even to “give the people what they want”.

              H.L. Menken once remarked “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard”.

              Jokes aside, just reading the remarks here you can see there is a problem. Practically nobody around here believes that America could radically reduce its ecological footprint without compromising living standards. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Voting doesn’t help much when neither the left or the right understand the problem.

              A great example of that is Bernie Sanders, left wing senator from a rural state coming out against congestion pricing in Manhattan because it would hurt the poor. It’s ludicrous. Car traffic is a disaster on the island and the only cure is to severely restrict them in favor of workable alternatives. Anyway cars are one of the main drivers of poverty in the country. That’s been obvious for 60 years but is just beginning to dawn on anyone.

              Another example is Detroit. Republicans wrecked the city. They literally took a wrecking ball to it. Democrats took over but totally failed to see the problem. The collapse began. Republicans point their fingers at Democrats. Both are completely blind to the immense stupidity it took to destroy what was once one of the world’s richest and most innovative cities.

              So democracy is fine but I won’t be silenced by the claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds because of our glorious democracy. I’m not saying democracy is a bad thing, just that you can’t hide behind it to defend the undefendable.

            5. Alimbiquated,

              I agree there are problems with representative democracy and in my mind for the US a system more similar to those in Scandanavian nations would be an improvement and this is not to say those could not be improved. It is difficult to reach agreement on the best policy approach or a better vision for the future. Taking money out of polictics would help and increasing transparency of lobbyist spending and their meetings with politicians, which should be publicly available to reduce back room deals. unknown to the public.

    3. “813 US billionaires control a record $5.7 trillion in wealth. The bottom 50% of Americans control $3.7 trillion in wealth. When ~800 people control more wealth than half a country’s population, we have a very serious problem.”

      1. The vast majority of billionaires and millionaires are wealthy on paper. They are also saddled with massive amounts of debt. They are really just better at obtaining debt than the average person.

        There are a lot of wealthy people hoping and praying the FED cuts interest rates before they have to refinance their debt. The Refinancing wall of maturing debt hasn’t hit yet. Which is the only reason the US economy looks ok.

        Commodities, particularly industrial metals but also the precious metals are starting to breakout higher in prices which will complicate the interest rate picture.

        1. If you have 3 billion dollars in assets and 1 billion in liabilities. Your a billionaire. If you have 1 1/2 billion dollars in assets and 1 billion in liabilities. Your not billionaire. If you have one billion dollars in your own personal assessment of your assets and 2 billion dollars of liabilities. Your last name is Trump. And last, if your counting your assets on your fingers and toes and not on paper. Your a caveman.

          1. If you have a mortgage do you own the property or does the bank?

            If you used your Tesla shares as collateral to borrow money against to buy say X as it’s called now. You can control the asset as long as you stay current with the payment. But you don’t own it.

            And if the shares you have used as collateral lose value you will eventually have to come up with more collateral to continue controlling the asset. Because you bought a company with margin debt.

            Billionaires don’t use their own money to finance deals. They borrow the money.

            1. If my home had a mortgage and It doesn’t. The property would be mine, along with the mortgage, obligations, risks, maintenance and utility. You seem to be confused with leasing and purchasing or have a problem paying your bills.

            2. Kind of like when McD bought into Boeing with Boeings own money, and look where it got them…
              Edit: quite a bit of simplification, but in general correct in my view.
              Feel free to counterargue.

        2. HHH,

          Billionaires with debt at anything more than 2% nominal annual rates are chumps, not hard to self finance with a net worth of a billion or more.

          1. HHH,

            I do have a mortgage at 2.25% fixed, don’t see much need to refinance and will be paid off in about a year, I will soon be debt free, but I am no billionaire.

  6. WoodMac Sees $1 Trillion At Risk for Clean Energy Investments Under Trump

    By Alex Kimani – May 21, 2024, 7:00 PM CDT

    WoodMac projects ~$7.7T in overall spending by the U.S. energy sector through 2050 under current policies.
    The overall spending on renewable energy could be cut by $1 trillion under a new Trump presidency.
    Analysts have predicted that less spending on low carbon energy could boost demand for natural gas by 6% or 6B cf/day by 2030.

    WoodMac projects ~$7.7T in overall spending by the U.S. energy sector through 2050 under current policies, a figure that could be cut by $1T under Trump through reduced policy support for low carbon energy and infrastructure improvements.
    Analysts have predicted that less spending on low carbon energy could boost demand for natural gas by 6% or 6B cf/day by 2030.

    WoodMac says that whereas Trump would lack the power to unilaterally repeal the Inflation Reduction Act enacted during the Biden presidency, he could bring changes to environmental rules and executive orders that would roll back many of Biden’s environmental policies.The research firm also projects that the total number of EVs on U.S. roads in 2050 would be 50% lower than under current policies because automakers would likely favor the production of hybrid vehicles over pure electric cars.

    https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/WoodMac-Sees-1-Trillion-At-Risk-for-Clean-Energy-Investments-Under-Trump.html

    1. Data is not the plural of anecdote. If you have a point to make, let’s see some numbers, not a propaganda video.

    2. JT,

      I guess we should not build anything where there are tornadoes as many homes, schools, and hospitals were also destroyed.

      2. Dennis
        That would likely be wise because without fossil fuels we wouldn’t be able to replace them anyway. Most of modern construction isn’t maintainable without fossil fuels either.

        1. JT,

          Good plan, no construction of any kind in the future. Why will there be non fossile fuels? I guess we stop extracting those as well?

  9. Interesting perspective from the CATL boss, via the ThINK blog:

    https://thinc.blog/2024/05/22/by-2042-chinese-battery-maker-will-no-longer-need-mining-as-recycling-takes-over/

    “The demand for critical materials might increase by five times in the next 10 years, considering the fast growth of the industry. But at the end of the day, when we achieve 100 per cent electric cars, there will be very tiny amounts of new critical materials to be mined.”

    He went on to say that CATL currently has the capacity to recycle as much as 99.6 per cent of precious metals such as nickel, cobalt and manganese, and up to 91 per cent of lithium.

    1. So, if they no longer need to mine new minerals, and just reuse the ones in existing batteries, they will go bankrupt since the system requires perpetual growth, as growth would have stopped, they would be selling a fixed amount of batteries per unit of time, unless they figure out a way to make the same batteries with less minerals and so on…

    2. Bob,
      Thank you for this link. The projected recycling rates are very interesting. I do wonder how a theoretical recycling capacity will turn into reality when considering factors such as just collecting the material to work with to begin with.

      The single best work that I have come across relating to the energy transition and mineral resource availability is by Simon Michaux, an Australian mining engineer currently working in Finland for their geological survey. It is “The Mining of Minerals and the Limits to Growth”. It is a very in-depth look and also cites some other excellent source material.

      https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/16_2021.pdf

      If I recall correctly, Michaux is skeptical that there are adequate resources for the first build replacement of the current global vehicle fleet with EVs that would allow us to have our cake and eat it too.

  10. “BloombergNEF’s latest New Energy Outlook estimates the world must invest $215 trillion by 2050 to zero out carbon emissions… it’s actually a bargain compared with the potential economic destruction of unabated climate change.”

    I didn’t know that the world was flush with so much spare money, or credit line to tap.

    I’m not concerned about ‘zeroing out’ carbon emissions by 2050. 80% reduction would be a just fine achievement.

    1. Hickory,

      Current World GDP is about 104 trillion (in 2023), real GDP (in constant 2023 $) typically grows about 3% per year, in this scenario I will assume a consevative 2% per year growth in real GDP. If we add up cumulative GDP over the 2024 to 2050 period under this scenario it is 3778 trillion in 2023$, $215 trillion in 2023$ is about 5.7% of the total, a small price to pay to avoid catastrophe, one way to gather these funds would be to increase income taxes on those in the top 10% of income and eliminate the special treatment of dividends and capital gains and treat them the same as wage and salary income. An alternative would be to tax wealth, for the World this is about 600 trillion is 2023 and here we will assume this wealth grows at a real annual rate (constant dollars) of 4% per year. If wealth is taxed at 1% per year each year from 2024 to 2050 this adds up to 299 trillion dollars worldwide.

      1. I’ve lost count but it seems as if revenues from wealth tax already has something like seven priority purposes already ahead in line.
        Fortunately there is much overlap between energy resiliency and global warming offset work, so some of the capital required will get deployed.

        1. Hickory,

          Marginal tax rates on high incomes were 70% in 1980, today the highest rate is 40%, if we look at 1980 rates and adjust for inflation, income above $667,000 per year would be taxed at 70%, raise taxes on dividends and capital gains to 70% for any income over $667,000 as well and index these to inflation as is done with current tax rates.

      2. Dennis, taxing ‘wealth’ doesn’t and wont work on a world wide scale. Most billionaires have paper wealth, like a Jeff Bezos with his $200b in wealth. They don’t tend to have the odd billion in cash just lying around. Even properties they might own are bits of paper saying they ‘own’ it.

        If Jeff owned a $50m property in NZ, and the government suddenly decided to strip ownership off foreigners, then the bit of paper he ‘owns’ suddenly has zero value. The NZ govt doesn’t gain anything either as the property can only produce what it was producing before the ‘act’. The wealth just disappears. No other foreigner is going to put money into their system either, because the government can’t be trusted…

        Likewise if you taxed Jeff and others a sudden 10% wealth tax. They would have to sell assets. Imagine Jeff selling 10% of Amazon, the SP would crash (as other wealthy people also have to sell stock to pay the tax). The share price would fall massively because of few buyers.

        Then the ‘little people’ with some savings in stocks are also less wealthy as the ‘value’ of Amazon went down, so if their 401k relied upon selling 50 Amazon shares each year to pay for their retirement, they would now have to sell a much higher number and be worse off as well, with the 401k not lasting their old age and the government now having to pay them a pension.

        The entire system only lasts while there is growing energy use to feed the system and maintain all the past built components. Like any self organising dissipative energy system unless the energy use keeps growing it will collapse.
        Civilization has collapse baked in, once energy available to the system declines at an accelerating rate. There are zero exceptions, it’s a physical law of the universe and happens to every self organising dissipative energy system that forms and increases the speed of entropy.

        1. Yeah absolutely. If you want a stock market crash by all means raise taxes. Which would lead not only to reduced retirement savings for the little guys. But also lost jobs.

          Could you imagine trying to sell into a market where prices are at all time highs. Not just stocks but in a lot of cases real estate and other items. Where there are no buyers only sellers.

          It would be a crisis that lead to not only bank failures but greatly reduced tax receipts.

          1. HHH
            You describe the inevitable. All bubbles pop, the current massive everything bubble is simply waiting for the pin. What will it be? When will it happen? How long can the markets defy gravity? Current valuations are outrageous and unsustainable by many measures. The current stock market has shaken off two hot wars, sticky inflation, rising rates, inverted yield curve, political instability, deadlocked and dysfunctional congress, out of control deficits, on and on. Delusional paper Wealth. We have been here before, but never to these extremes. This cannot end well. At some point everyone will be running to the exits yelling fire. And yes, there will be bank failures and greatly reduced tax receipts as you correctly point out. A Fed soft landing is propaganda.

            Do you think our deficit spending can continue without end? Who will buy a 30 year bond when growth becomes contraction? Reduced spending or increased taxes, or some combination thereof must come some day.

            Retirement is a concept that is soon to see its pull date except for the extremely wealthy. Everyone can see that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme based on endless growth. Both my adult children say they will never see a dime, and are bitter about it. The US is effectively bankrupt, and cannot repay its debts, it can only roll them over and allow inflation to relentlessly chew away at the value of our currency. A 2% target inflation rate reduces the value of anyone holding bonds by 50% over 30 years. Targeted inflation is a very clever slight of hand by the Fed to allow deficits to exist. But the game can only be played with endless “growth”. Endless growth on a finite planet is reaching its limits, What then?? The crash you speak of is baked in the cake, and it will be a doozy.

            Of course this is only my opinion based on observing past bubbles, watching resource depletion, and a dose of common sense and only time will tell if I am right.

            1. Tom,

              The only thing worse than inflation is deflation, consider 1929 to 1933, that was a period of severe deflation. The choice of a 2% target by central banks is to avoid dreaded deflation. Yes endless growth cannot continue, we need a better system…

              https://earth4all.life/

            2. Tom, HHH and Hideaway’s ignorance and right wing talking points are on full display here. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. It’s an insurance plan, not an investment. Does it need to be updated for extended life expectancy, yes. It’s biggest problem is the publics ignorance and propaganda like the three of you display. Tom, your children’s beliefs will be the outcome if they don’t educate themselves to the understanding of how the system works and live within their means.

              Here is another example of the ignorance on display:

              HHH- ” Could you imagine trying to sell into a market where prices are at all time highs. Not just stocks but in a lot of cases real estate and other items. Where there are no buyers only sellers.”

              No, a market is were buyers and sellers agree on a transaction and set a price.

              Some more ignorance:

              “Endless growth on a finite planet is reaching its limits, What then?? The crash you speak of is baked in the cake, and it will be a doozy.” “A Fed soft landing is propaganda.”

              Resource depletion is not a current factor and is not going to be one in Tom’s lifetime, accept in his head. The Fed has done an excellent job over the last two years dealing with inflation, war and the aftermath of a pandemic.

              Don’t be a quitter. There is only one option but to move forward. There has never been a guaranty of growth, it’s just the only thing any of you have ever known in your lifetime. Failure will be on you with no excuses except your own ignorance.

            3. Tom
              We do not know how the future will unfold, except in a very general way. The air may come out of the balloon in a bang, or maybe with a long, slow hissing noise. For sure, all of our futures will be impacted by fewer per-capita resources and a lower material standard of living.
              Better if your kids give up being bitter, recognize they are part of a very large picture that was not of their making, and that they have virtually no ability to influence the big picture. What they can do, is personal preparation for whatever is coming up, and while that may still not work out for them, at least it will still improve their odds of survival, and even possibly enhance their quality of life in the future relative to others around them.
              During the pandemic lockdown I wrote up my thoughts for my kids and grandkids. They all took it seriously and are moving ahead with their lives including consideration of the future.

            4. Tom, The US government is adding $1 trillion to the deficit every 100 days. Yet the money supply is still shrinking currently.

              At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what the government does. It doesn’t matter what the central bank does. QT and higher interest didn’t slow down the stock market because neither QT nor higher interest rates matter. The amount of bank reserves on FED’s balance simply doesn’t matter.

              What matters is what commercial banks do. And their willingness and ability to extend credit into the economy. Banks that become balance sheet constrained don’t lend. It’s that simple.

              Without a growing energy supply the banks aren’t going to grow the money supply. Debt deflation is way more likely of an outcome than runaway inflation.

            5. Did I just read a comment talking about resource depletion not being a present problem on PeakOilBarrel.com? Wild.

            6. KLEIBER- “Did I just read a comment talking about resource depletion not being a present problem on PeakOilBarrel.com? Wild.”

              Name the “Resource depletion” today, that wasn’t yesterday and will be tomorrow, next year or Tom’s lifetime? Scarcity doesn’t count.

              “Because of unlimited wants we can never eliminate scarcity, but it can be reduced by the right choices”

              http://www2.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/eco212i/lectures/5es/5es.htm#:~:text=Because of unlimited wants we,reduced by the right choices.

          2. HHH,

            See US from 1936 to 1980, a period of very high growth on average.

            From 1947 to 1980 the average US annual growth rate in real GDP was 3.74% and from 1981 to 2019 the average annual growth rate in US real GDP was 2.7%.

            Also if we consider real median family income from 1953 to 1980, the average annual growth rate was 2%, from 1981 to 2019 the average annual growth rate of real median family income was 0.55% per year.

            Only the wealthy were helped by reduced tax rates in the US after 1980.

        2. Hideaway,

          The wealth tax would be 1% and could be on stocks and bonds only. The very wealthy get income in interest and dividends from their investments in stocks and bonds, this could be the source of funds to pay a wealth tax. If people think that will not work, then inheritance taxes and high marginal tax rates on all income (wages, interest, dividends, and all capital gains) could be used to tax the wealthy.

          In the US such policy was in place from 1936 to 1980 and reduced income inequality markedly over that period.

          1. Was it the tax policy or access to cheap energy relative to wages that reduced income inequality? A family of four use to could make it on one income.

            Again 1% wealth tax doesn’t even come close to covering the spending. You can tax the wealthy at 100% and it doesn’t cover the spending.

            We don’t have a taxation problem we have a spending problem.

            1. We have a falling EROEI problem, which is why govt debt is through the roof and why the family of 4 can’t make it on one income anymore, which use to include a freestanding house, a car and annual holidays..

              It’s all connected and so is the inequality connected to declining net energy. The system can show the average person is better off by the numbers used, while the wealth, mostly paper wealth, not actually turned into goods and services, goes to the top 0.1% while the median person is worse off.

              Of course any one of the wealthy can currently turn their paper wealth into real goods and services, but if they all tried at the same time the materials just do not exist, nor would there be buyers for their stocks or properties.

            2. HHH it was the tax policy. We can reduce spending or increase taxes, or some of both in order to balance the budget. Claims that higher taxes will crash the economy were also made in 1935, they were wrong then and they remain incorrect.

              As far as higher spending on energy, if we use gasoline as a proxy for energy spending, the chart below shows the percentage of GDP spent on gasoline in the US from 1949 to 2022. From 1949 to 1980 the average was 3.14% and from 1981 to 2019 the average was 2.19%.

            3. Hideaway,

              Wealth is a stock, income is a flow, GDP measures income not wealth. The average family cannot make it on one income because unions have been destroyed and the average worker has no power as an individual. In addition less progressive taxation favored by neoliberal ideology has allowed incomes for the wealthy to grow much faster than the median income which tends to bid up prices for land in desirable areas beyond the means of the median family. The high levels of inequality today compared to before 1980 are very corrosive to social cohesion and favors the rise of populist demagogues.

            4. Dennis it depends on where you want to move the goalpost to. A move to 70% would absolutely crash the market as billionaires and millionaires would have to sell assets.

              A 1% luxury tax isn’t going to move the needle or fix anything.

              Hint: during the pandemic most corporate entities borrowed all they could. Average maturity date on this debt is 5-7 years.

              So over next 2 1/2 years if interest rates don’t drop dramatically all these corporations will not only have to come up more collateral they will also have to pay interest rates that are double what they currently are to refinance.

              So there is a good possibility these wealthy people will be forced to sell assets anyway. Better hope and pray for lower commodity prices.

            5. HHH,

              Millionaires and billionaires could pay taxes on investment income, the market would adjust, such a plan would not happen overnight, dividends and interest could be held as cash rather than reinvested and the 70% on investment income would be paid out of that cash account. A 1% tax on wealth (not a luxury tax) would be substantial, a significant inheritance tax would also help.

          2. It needs to be addressed somehow.

            The consequence will be that the big real estate owners will eventually have to sell properity to pay taxes, and you can be assured that they will work full time to avoid this by moving their investments or just their home address to another jurisdiction. Likewise if the dividend from a company does not pay for taxes, a lot of creativity from major shareholders can be expected.

            I know someone that got rich in the most arbitrary of ways by buying bitcoins at absurdly low levels. That is not very fair and can be extrapolated to count for many more cases in the capitalist economy. Paying taxes or getting involved in “the art of giving away money” should be a tolerable expense considering the status gain and stature nowadays in winning in the capitalist game.

            We have moved so far away from the mantra from pre industrial times saying that “money equals a persons sweat”. It does feel more fair that pure work hours should be rewarded. It can however be argued to promote this more is marxism, and a certain level of private investment is needed anyway to ensure the innovation that centralised wealth can not accomplish on its own. Exactly the best approach forward is difficult to pinpoint. But to lose social cohesion because of too high income disparities in whealty countries are probably not worth it.

            1. Kolbeinth,

              The wealth tax if instituted would be 1% of asset value, large real estate owners probably have this amount in rental income, stock and bond holders would have this in interest and dividends, it is an alternative to high progressive income tax which in the US is probably not going to happen so the wealth tax is a replacement.

          3. I agree also Hickory

            I would also look at an upstream tax on all fossil fuels with a phased in approach. Start by taking half of the revenue and invest it in low hanging energy efficiency and transition fruit. Give the rest back to individuals in form of a tax credit. So that low income earner can have their cost increases offset. This approach will primarily effect the wealthy and high energy users. Basically make the cost of fossil fuel energy progressively more expense when you use more of it.

            Thanks Dennis for being a voice of reason and facts on this thread

  14. Got electricity?
    https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-energy-transition-wont-happen
    This article title is not what the content is about.
    Its about data/compute sector energy demand, and is good summary of the situation.

    btw- in the US grid upgrading got a major boost from the current administration in the last week or two
    ‘DOE unveils 10 potential ‘national interest’ transmission corridors’
    The proposed corridors, which total more than 3,500 miles across targeted regions, could unlock federal financing’
    https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-national-interest-transmission-nietc-ferc/715472/
    and
    https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-transmission-planning-cost-allocation-rule/716018/
    https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-transmission-planning-cost-allocation-national-corridor/715937/

    1. Hickory

      Great news. It is just so logical to increase transmission capacity in such a diverse country.

      Not read all of the links yet. But, there are opportunities to increase capacities through major bottlenecks. The the most pragmatic way is to upgrade HVDC lines already there, and to add more where appropriate.

      I think the current grid in the US or an improved version should be able to burden electrical vehicles in most cases. It is a problem to be solved to have enough power for rapid charging; it would always be cheaper to charge at home or at a low capacity location.

  15. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/solar-panel-supply-german-electricity-prices-negative-renewable-demand-green-2024-5

    Sunny days in Germany mean gray clouds for solar profitability as the nation’s dive into renewables has left it with too much energy.

    According to a note from SEB Research, in the past 10 days, solar producers have had to take an 87% price cut during production hours. In fact, when production peaks, prices have slid well below zero.

    On average, the price received was 9.1 euros per megawatt-hour, significantly under the 70.6 euros paid during non-solar-power hours.

    “This is what happens to power prices when the volume of unregulated power becomes equally big or bigger than demand: Prices collapse when unregulated power produces the most,” the Swedish bank wrote on Tuesday.

    ===

    Lol, the system literally cannot allow good things to happen because it harms profits. We could have solved energy with nuclear fission decades ago, and it wouldn’t have mattered as someone has to get a cut and keep growing profits.

    See also: Janet Yellen raging like a psycho over China overproducing EVs and solar panels to ruin the West by making a less harmful economy. What.

    1. I don’t think that lower life expectancy is a bad thing, not as if it is due to the childhood mortality rates from 100+years ago.
      Its ok to get old (over 50) and then pass on.
      We should make it much easier, legally and practically.

      1. Most of my fellow Mericans my age were dead 3 years ago.
        I’m almost to the age of a European.

  17. “A Republican Senate candidate was just caught blowing campaign funds on strippers.”

    Not that bad for one of our Repug Friends—

  18. I personally believe that the best form of government is well regulated capitalism……….. but this form cannot exist except in a country wherein the large majority of the citizens are well educated, well informed ( not the same thing by any means!) and IN CONTROL of the government……. rather than the government being controlled by bankers, industrialists, and the alien monsters known as corporations.

    A few Western European and Nordic countries seem to have governments that can be described , at least in general terms, being of this sort.

    I’m not at all sure which of the various proposals discussed here would be the best in terms of promoting a just, safe, and enduring society……

    Such countries are basically socialist in choosing policies that best serve the country and the people, but capitalist in allowing and encouraging businesses to operate in competition.

    BUT I’m sure of one thing.

    Unless we somehow manage to reform our tax and property laws so that the large majority of the people in this country can live respectable lives, with income enough to pay for housing, education, health care, etc,
    we’re going to have some REAL problems within another generation or so.

    One possible outcome is that we wind up with an authoritarian government bad enough to reasonably refer to it as a police state….with the heavy hand of the law keeping the majority of the people in a state of near servitude to the ruling class.

    Another is that we wind up with a huge underclass with little or no choice but to do whatever has to be done to survive from day to day and year to year.Such people aren’t only willing to riot and burn…… they’re apt to be eager to do so.

    I read a lot of opinions held as gospel by various people in political camps from hard left to hard right regarding the power of state and federal government to maintain control and keep the peace in such a scenario.

    My own opinion, based on quite a bit of reading and talking to people in uniform is that fifty soldiers, equipped with their usual gear, can wipe just about any local group or community in outright rebellion, no problem at all, if once ordered to do so, regardless of the cost…….. meaning in essence a high body count.

    What the people who believe this to be case don’t generally take into consideration is that if things ever get to this point…… a substantial percentage of the people in uniform are going to be thinking about their own families and communities, and join the rebellion.

    Furthermore, if the people in any city or large rural area decide an outright rebellion is in their best interests….. consider that for every deputy or city or state police officer, there’s at least a couple of hundred ( local ) people who are well enough armed to massacre them, if law enforcement pushes the issue.

    I can’t say how many people in this country believe that the ultimate foundation of their own personal liberty is anchored by their right to be armed, but the number is certainly well into the tens of millions.

    We live in interesting times.

    The upcoming elections may be referred to by future historians as the inflection point that marks the history of this country for the next three or four generations….. maybe longer.

    Vote blue.

    1. OFM.

      The stylr of government that exists in the Scandanavian nations is about as good as it gets, though no doubt there are imperfections. Equality is much higher in those nations compared to most of the rest of the OECD. They have not bought in as heavily as say the US into the neoliberal ideology that has been the bane of the middle class for the past 44 years.

      2. Totally agree.

        “About as good as it gets”, and probably fairly close to as good as it can get.

        Unfortunately it’s unlikely that we Yankees will ever approach this level, considering that we’re so ill educated, superstitious, and socially and culturally fragmented.

        1. OFM,

          Perhaps correct, but coming technological change is likely to exacerbate inequality unless their are social changes, it took the Great Depression and World War 2 to bring about some social change in the US, this was the brick to the head needed. I imagine in 1929 the changes of the next 20 years in the US would have been difficult to envision. We have a good model to strive for, a crisis might enable changes for the better or pehaps worse if we continue the trend toward authoritarianism.

        2. The US accounts for just 4% of the world’s population but 35% of global firearm suicides.

          Americans are 25 times more likely to be killed in a gun homicide than people in other high-income countries.

    2. OFM

      What’s Blue going to do? Or Red it’s irrelevant.

      Bring back oil gas and coal deposits? Direct harvest CO2? Feed the hungry? Cure the sick? Prevent war?

      The founding fathers were actually hardly fathers at all they were teenagers and early 20s revolutionaries who recognized the opportunity to exploit the most concentrated resources the world has ever known. It would be better to describe them as businesses men who wanted to unlock the potential profits of North America as quickly as possible.

      The current crop of entrepreneurs (politicians) are decrepit old men trying to hold on to what they have living in the past. They’ll tell you anything you want to hear to get into office but they won’t tell you the truth. Simply because they can’t.

      Every civilization that has ever been developed has ultimately collapsed and this one is no different. AI won’t save it, solar won’t save it, wind won’t save it, and old men roasting each other won’t save it. It very well might hasten it.

  19. “Creative destruction is the dismantling of long-standing practices in order to make way for innovation and is seen as a driving force of capitalism”. And of course this is not unique to capitalism. Regardless of the system, there is an inevitable/eventual adoption of improved techniques.

    Most people are going to be surprised how rapidly and heavily Digital Intelligence (AI) is going to change the landscape. I see some changes within the economy that will certainly be apparent as a trend within the next 5 years.
    Many white collar jobs will be phased out and areas with heavy workforce concentration in finance, insurance, legal, government, education, medical billing and such will see lots of people out of work. Secondly, there is going to be a growing concentration of wealth in the regions where they have robust innovation based on DI applications. DI personal partners/assistants are going to be widespread among those who can afford the service or will be provided by the employer, and their productivity advantage will be much higher compared with those who don’t have access to these tools or are not skilled at utilizing the capabilities.
    A whole new set of tech companies will emerge that specialize in providing specific DI applications.

    Also the whole field of automation/robotics is going to advance rapidly now, utilizing DI capabilities… in the military, in the factory, along the fence lines, and on the road.
    Lastly, I’ll point out that DI adds a wildcard to the deck when it comes to cybersecurity, to politics, and to the relative fortunes of countries.
    Overall, I think we are in for a big shuffling of the deck and also an escalation of the divide between haves and havenots.

    The electricity side of this whole story is a big deal.

    1. And here I thought it was a big deal when robots in Japan were caring for people in old age homes.

      TRANSFORMING SURGERY WITH JAPAN’S FIRST SURGICAL ROBOT

      “Japan’s first surgical robot was developed two years ago. As of 2022, it won approval for use in cancers of the prostate, stomach, colon and uterus.”

      https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/shows/2050138/

      1. Feel free to pretend that the current public products are the pinnacle of what DI is capable of. Rather, this is just the very beginning of this story.

      2. The sad part was that they had to put a disclaimer twice:

        OBVIOUS WARNING: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. DO NOT EAT GLUE. SERIOUSLY.

        and again:

        DO NOT TRY THIS YOURSELF. DO NOT EAT GLUE PIZZA.

        Hahaha might be tell that our species is not the brightest tool in the shed.

      3. DI will amplify many aspects of humanity.
        For some it will be productivity and education.
        For others it will be confusion, delusion, and false beliefs.
        It will not cure the QAnon or maga among us.
        It will not help to make you less gullible or give you good judgement,
        unless perhaps if you already have that determined goal and intention.

  20. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/africa/zambians-suffering-from-climate-change-induced-drought-lock-kitchens-guard-fields-as-theft-prostitution-levels-spike-96308

    “We are witnessing an increase in thefts due to hunger. The police have just arrested a man who stole 24 panels from our cooperative society’s solar hammer mill,” Malata said. “This was unusual, but is now becoming common,” she said.”
    And this is the least of it, as you can read.
    Life on the edge.

  21. I have always thought we would use all the oil that we could but at one time I did think we would leave some of the gas and, more so, coal behind, even if it was economically available, not so much because of renewables but because we’d collapse early and lose the social organisation required to do the complex tasks of extracting it all. But apparently, like all such things recently, no matter how pessimistic you are it’s never enough. It looks like gas and coal use will remain high and maybe accelerate to fill any gap left by oil depletion, by at least as much as renewables do (e.g. building coal fired generators to power EVs – coal production chart below). However exactly how much fossil fuel is used may now have become irrelevant anyway.

    Another thing I used to think was that civilisation would be impossible above three degrees of warming, now I think the limit is 2.5, and with the climate behaviour now showing the ECS is at the high end of estimates, and tipping point threshold estimates getting lower with each new study, it looks like global civilisation will easily hang on long enough to put sufficient CO2 into the atmosphere to do maximum environmental damage, destroy as many species as it can and cause the most possible overall human suffering, leaving something quite impoverished and unpleasant behind. And all that is without considering all the non-climate related environmental damage, which would probably do the same thing, just taking a bit longer.

    Another dose of reality from Sabine Hossenfelder – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaaJqPCjNr4

    Sure to ruffle a few feathers: “The term ‘energy transition’ must be dropped” – https://www.philonomist.com/en/interview/term-energy-transition-must-be-dropped?ref=collapse2050.com#:~:text=The%20industrial%20revolution%20has%20often,wood%20–%20it%20stimulated%20its%20consumption.

    “The world in general burns much more wood today than before the industrial revolution, namely thanks to oil, which allows us to exploit it much more easily.”

    1. 9 billion people with access to chain saws and other mechanized tree harvesting machines can deforest the worlds remaining remnants very quickly. Add biofuel crop production to the current tally of disturbed acreage used for combustion and we are talking massive biosphere degradation.

      Sabine Hossenfelders video on global warming that you linked I find to be straight up. Do you know of any scalable process for artificial ambient carbon capture that is not a thermodynamic trainwreck?

      Her video on Enhanced Geothermal is right in line with what I have been thinking as well- “the dark horse”
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QByk4jJwp9c

  22. If I could get 2 to 1 odds I’d bet that this year or next the annual USA disaster costs will exceed a trillion dollars (previous maximum was 500 billion in 2017 – a year, like this one, that followed an El Nino). There will be enough floods, fires, droughts, storms and, especially, major hurricanes, it’s just a question of where they impact and what they damage.

    Atlantic to get ‘extraordinary’ hurricane season: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw441ng00wxo. Texas in particular seems to be getting hit now and likely more so through the summer (the supercharged loop current in the GoM is a bit ominous).

    Here are two recent papers that take more realistic looks at climate impact on economy than the neo-liberal economic litany of claptrap that wins Nobel prizes.

    The Macroeconomic Impact of Climate Change: Global vs. Local Temperature (very long, I only managed about a third of it).

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w32450?utm_campaign=ntwh&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntwg1

    “Climate change is frequently described as an existential threat. This view, however, stands in stark contrast to empirical estimates of the impact of climate change on economic activity, which imply that a 1°C rise in the world’s temperature reduces world output at most by 1-3%. [i.e. Nordhaus bullshit] … In this paper, we reconcile both views and demonstrate that the macroeconomic impacts of climate change are six times larger than previously documented. … We find that climate change leads to a present value welfare loss of 31% and a Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) of $1,056 per ton of carbon dioxide (tCO2). … These magnitudes are comparable to the economic damage caused by fighting a war domestically and permanently. Our results also indicate that world GDP per capita would be 37% higher today had no warming occurred between 1960 and 2019″

    They still think there will be an economy of some form by 2100 though, which I doubt.

    Climate Scorpion – the sting is in the tail. Introducing planetary solvency

    https://actuaries.org.uk/media/g1qevrfa/climate-scorpion.pdf

    “We concluded in our previous reports in this series that there has been limited consideration of the severity of the impacts our global society could experience under the worst-case scenarios. This latest report looks at the current trajectory of global warming and the possibility that Earth’s climate may be more sensitive to elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases than we thought. … The rate of global warming accelerated in 2023 – There is early indication this is not temporary. … Life in the tail – Increased warming is now driving more severe impacts across the planet. … Warming above 1.5°C is dangerous, increasing the risk of triggering multiple climate tipping points. … Our world knows not what it is gambling with, and if we don’t control this fire, it will burn us all down. etc.”

    In the mid term climate risks seem likely to wipe out insurance industry, and perhaps the whole the FIRE sector, as they exist today. This is on the Collapse2050 site, which often has good articles, but here is really just a repeat of a New York Times podcast:

    “In eighteen states last year home owners insurance market lost money … spells real trouble … for almost every part of the economy.”

    “This market is starting to buckle under the impact of climate change”

    https://www.collapse2050.com/collapse-of-the-u-s-home-insurance-system/

    Governments will have to increasingly intervene to maintain any kind of economy as we currently know it which will mean true socialism, although it wouldn’t be allowed to be called that in anglophone countries (the horror) or, more likely, fascism (or strong corporatism to avoid the f-word).

    When the Thwaites glacier goes, which seems to be getting more likely in the near term the closer we look, then any remaining insurance companies will ceases to exist overnight (along with a few other institutions, such as democratic government).

    “The rushing of seawater beneath grounded ice over considerable distances makes the glacier more vulnerable to melting from a warmer ocean than anticipated, which in turn will increase projections of ice mass loss.”

    https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2404766121

    1. The time to talk about averting climate disasters is over.

      MILLIONS IN US FACE EXTREME-HEAT THREAT AS EXPERTS URGE BETTER PROTECTIONS

      “Temperature records are being smashed globally, year after year, as greenhouse gasses released by burning fossil fuels warm the planet. More than two-thirds of all Americans were under heat alerts in 2023 – the hottest year on record for the planet, which was followed by the warmest winter on record. Noaa, health officials and some local governments are stepping up plans to better prepare for extreme heat, which is increasingly striking in areas unused to – and unprepared for – dangerous temperatures.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/27/extreme-heat-health-risk

  23. I’m actually shocked that anyone here would think the problem is a monetary or fiscal one. Fiscal policy didn’t create the problem and it won’t solve the problem, but I guess that’s just how powerful the mainstream media propaganda is.

    Without a productive way of putting money to work, it’s simply pools up in assets, which are unevenly distributed, favoring the wealthy. The 50s 60s and 70s are perfect example of the growth of an economy built on an exponentially growing energy supply in the 80s and 90s are example when you take that away.

    Money is lent into existence pure and simple. With or without confidence. With confidence when abundant resources guarantee a return with interest it’s lent by commercial banks. And lent into existence without confidence by government borrowing.

    The fact that 85% of mortgages are secured through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should signal the reality that organic growth has ended. The personal productivity of the global population has end. Banks can’t and won’t lend unless the government guarantees the loan. That’s not normal and it can’t change and no level of taxation will improve it. Not even 100% which isn’t far from our present reality if you include the insurance burden to the equation.

    We’re looking down the barrel of depletion add all zeros you like it will not change the material reality.

    1. When stimulus checks are handed out. It creates deposits on the balance sheets of the commercial banks. Which by law have to be back with an asset. So the bank buys US treasury debt to back the deposit.

      UBI would create a lot of deposits on commercial bank balance sheets that would need to be back with an asset. Which is demand for treasury debt.

      They will try to keep consumption way higher than it would naturally be by handing out free money. Which really just pulls forward the day of reckoning.

      1. HHH

        Thanks for the economic insights.

        If money was the problem then monetary policy could solve it. But it’s not the problem. I’m not a fan per se of a debt based currency system but gold silver or crypto are no better. The central bank system has been an ingenious way for governments to fund operations without disrupting their populations. Perpetual government debt is perceived as a good investment tool rather than a corrosive malinvestment .

        In some ways particularly here in the US we have enjoyed a material way of life that we have never paid for. Most infrastructure has been created through municipal bonds that roll over in perpetuity. Interest only funding. Sweet!!!

        The problem is maintenance costs escalate over time so that the original value is lost leaving an unsecured investment. We can also call it entropy. Eventually replacement cost exceeds the value of the product to society and the system is abandoned. The rust belt is a prime example.

        In the growth phase there is no problem there are an abundance of resources at low cost that fuels the system. But not so in the contraction phase. Things start falling apart rapidly starting with the economy which steers productive resource allocation and ends with ridiculous speculative asset bubbles.

        AI=Tulips

  24. This article exposes the impossibility of wind and solar being built out to any meaningful degree.

    https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2024/03/how-to-escape-from-the-iron-age/

    The most popular offshore wind turbine nowadays has a capacity of 7 MW, while the largest ones have a capacity of 14 MW.36 If we make a conservative estimate based on the data above (the steel intensity doubles for every doubling of the power capacity), a 14 MW offshore wind turbine would require 1,300 tons of steel per MW or 18,200 tonnes in total. Such a wind turbine thus consumes 24 times more steel than a coal or gas power plant of the same power capacity.

    This article only addresses the steel predicament but concrete has an even bigger problem.

    That’s why our renewable efforts are more likely to hasten our demise.

    1. I´m guessing that you are into the nuclear route then, perhaps I´m wrong, but many are.
      But I once calculated that the copper needed for the 6000 KBS-3 canisters needed for storing Swedens accumulated nuclear waste currently in situ, it would be enough to coil the wind (or otherwise powered generators) for our annual consumption twice.
      I also have numbers that gives LCOE for wind at 65N currently at about 35E/Kwh (for a hydrogen research project, albeit a few years ago) so way below Flamanville and Hinkley point numbers.
      Currently electricity is almost too cheap to meter here, thanks to wind and hydro:
      https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/
      We are working on storage too, with some success.
      (But I´ve got my own woodlot and some PV so not critical for me personally)
      So I think nenewables in some form, or shape will “power” the future.
      Again, I might have misinterpreted your comment and appologize in that case but thats what I read into it.

      1. Laplander
        What I’m saying is wind and hydro can’t exist without fossil. It simply can’t be done. Creative hand wringing and determination that it must be done won’t change the chemistry. Renewables are simply a blind alley increasing fossil fuel consumption. The green movement today is no different than the alchemists of yesteryear their job depends on saying it is working. Unfortunately the majority of humanity are extremely gullible. We’re now so disconnected from reality I don’t expect anyone to understand. We’ve entered a fake it till you make it world order and we ain’t makin it.

        1. JT- “wind and hydro can’t exist without fossil”
          So what. Building non-fossil energy generating mechanisms is a good use of fossil fuel. Among the best. The energy return on the energy invested for utility scale solar and wind is strongly positive, with lifecycle energy payback times well less than 5 years (and roughly 1-2 years in favorable locations).
          You seem to forget that the ‘fuel’ is free, once the mechanism is built.

          If you want to have an example of a widespread energy mechanism that consumes fossil fuel but only yields a very small net energy return you should focus on corn ethanol. Its a pitiful yield considering the inputs.

    2. JT/ Hideaway/ HHH/ Tom

      Many thanks for you recent comments on renewables and (mis)-government policy. I see that there are some that believe high taxation, UBI and MMT (aka the Magic Money Tree) are the way to solve mankind’s problem, and of course ramping up ever more wind and solar, whilst ignoring the serious problem of EROEI, resource depletion and population growth. It might be a good idea if those who think population growth will stabilise should look and Africa’s projections and in particular Nigeria, currently 225 million and forecast to increase to 375 million by 2050. Or that , in 1950 the total population of Africa was 200 million( Europe 550 million) and currently 1.5 billion and expected to add another billion by 2100( UN numbers medium 2.1 birth rate). The UN meanwhile expects a total fertility rate of 2.5 for Africa and the African population rising to 5.4 billion by 2100.

      But all is not lost. All we have to do is build more renewables and shift to EV’s ; except that EV sales are stagnating in the US and EU as the high cost of ownership and drawbacks becomes apparent. Likewise for domestic heat pumps.
      JT, your link to Wind Energy( and PV) resource requirements was extremely timely. Building bigger consumes more resources, especially steel and concrete than a smaller wind turbine. The increase in resource demand is not linear but exponential. My own belief is that wind turbines above 5MW will prove to be very expensive and short lived, as the stresses also increase exponentially. Even 5MW turbine are likely to last less than 20 years
      But all we have to to do is wave the magic wand and all will be fine. To hell to the environment and loss of Flora and Fauna.
      I will repeat what I have been saying for a long, long time, on this blog and others. Population and resource depletion are THE main issues facing mankind. Ignore these threats at your peril. Squandering resources on Wind, PV and EV’s will only take us to the cliff edge sooner.

      1. Carnot
        Thanks for your comments

        A lot of people don’t understand that beyond the cost of production installation and maintenance wind actually needs reliable electricity to work. To provide that they’re equipped with diesel generators.

        https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2023/02/06/dozens-of-giant-turbines-at-scots-windfarms-powered-by-diesel-generators/

        There was an article some years ago of an offshore wind installation in Europe that could not be grid tied so for a year they had to run the generators 24 seven to maintain rotation of the shaft so there’ll be no deflection.

        So just think about it, we have an intermittent unreliable source of electricity that can only function because of a demand-based power grid that has dispatchable power. How on earth is that ever going to work?

        And what I’m really tired of hearing is the expression clean, energy, fossil fuels primary pollutant is CO2, which by the way we can’t live without. All these new alternative renewable sources of “clean” energy leave behind mountains of toxic, heavy metal sludge from the mines in tailing ponds that have to be netted to keep birds from landing in them and dying. And do we ever see pictures of that? Oh, no, that’s hidden from site because Dawn Detergent can’t clean it up.

        It’s all just a bunch of political games By politicians being controlled by their corporate managers. Ultimately to distract and divide a sensitized confused polarized population that unfortunately have no clue that their primary energy supply is running out and there’s nothing they can do about it.

        1. JT,

          We will not be short on CO2 for about 5000 years even if no fossil fuel were burned in the future.

          Climate change is real, did you hear that smoking cigarettes is not good for your health?

      2. What “stagnating” EV sales look like:
        https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2024/trends-in-electric-cars

        “Electric car sales remained strong in the first quarter of 2024, surpassing those of the same period in 2023 by around 25% to reach more than 3 million. This growth rate was similar to the increase observed for the same period in 2023 compared to 2022.”

        Yes the rate of growth is slowing in some markets, but as an industry grows, it becomes more difficult to sustain its previous growth rates.

  25. Well, where I live it’s big pickup trucks for the boys and SUVs for the gals. Still waiting to see an EV.

    GLOBAL SALES OF POLLUTING SUVS HIT RECORD HIGH IN 2023

    “Sales of SUVs hit a new record in 2023, making up half of all new cars sold globally. Experts warned that the rising sales of the large, heavy vehicles is pushing up the carbon emissions that drive global heating. The analysis, by the International Energy Agency, found that the rising emissions from SUVs in 2023 made up 20% of the global increase in CO2, making the vehicles a major cause of the intensifying climate crisis. If SUVs were a country, the IEA said, they would be the world’s fifth-largest emitter of CO2, ahead of the national emissions of both Japan and Germany.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/28/global-sales-of-polluting-suvs-hit-record-high-in-2023-data-shows

    1. Meanwhile I saw a Rivian suv come around the bend yesterday,
      and the very next vehicle was a Rivian pickup. I see one most times I go on the road.
      Ev’s are commonplace in this region.
      As of 1 year ago 1of 6 of vehicle sales in WA state had a plug, and 23% in the biggest county (King).
      Its an accelerating trend.
      And hydroelectricity is the primary electricity source, with retail cost at 12 cent/kwh

      Some places will do better than others. Part of that is dependent on fortunate circumstances and part is due to choices made.

    2. I can tell you that if the incentives are the right ones, EVs will be bought.

      In Eastern Norway there are about 50% of vehicles running around electric by eyesight observation. Electric vehicles tend to be used more. It is a very clean (and noise reducing) solution when it comes to local emissions, where you can feel a difference in air quality compared to some years ago. There are a lot of old vehicles running on gasoline/diesel being parked around, some are clinging on to their old cars.

      The planned ahead city designs here tend to be pretty compact, with lanes for bikes (electric or not) and focus on tram/subways. And not at least energy efficient housing. Less cars are ok for most people in the cities if they can solve commuting problems and selected long travels somehow.

      1. “I can tell you that if the incentives are the right ones, EVs will be bought.”

        The elephant in the room when it comes to incentives will be a decline in crude oil product availability.

Comments are closed.