88 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, May 25, 2022”

    1. From the paper:

      … the criteria for what makes agriculture sustainable or not are often confusing and contested.

      Ha. To say the bloody least.

      After years of running a small-scale CSA and market apple orchard, following four years of working at a neighbor’s organic farm, I’ve come to realize the term “sustainable agriculture” is a direct contradiction in terms, an oxymoron not unlike “military intelligence” or “plastic silverware”. There may be better ways of farming than others (with giant scale industrial farming at the bottom of the list), but they are ALL unsustainable.

      That’s because farming, no matter how you slice it, does three things that are by definition unsustainable:

      Farming takes over land

      Farming depletes finite resources

      Farming grows populations

      (Ask Jared Diamond and William Catton.)

      As you contemplate the conundrum of feeding 8 billion selfish, screaming, pissing, shitting great apes, contemplate this image:

      Land mammals by weight.

      Ask me where I would be without pesticides, diesel and gasoline, plastic film, and a shotgun to shoot porcupines out of apple trees and woodchucks out of garden rows.

      1. I find it painful to acknowledge the points that you make Mike are so very true.

        Yet farming is what we have become. 7 goats in the herd have become seven hundred, 12 bushels of grain have become 12 barges of Hard Red Winter Wheat, a clearing in the forest has become cropland from river to river. 60 million bison have been replaced by ground beef and corn syrup.

        Its here to stay until we are done.

        One thing is certainly going to change- there will be less energy going to agriculture over the next few decades. Less fertilizer, less ‘cides’, less marginal land used for intensive production. Seems to me.

      2. Listen to Mike, folks. I couldn’t have put it any better myself and I’ve been farming at every level, off and on since I was a kid. We still plowed some garden plots with a mule back then…… mostly for old times sake, it’s true, but if you’re only doing a thousand square feet at any one spot, a mule is just fine. More interesting than a tractor, too.

        Hi Mike…….
        A twenty two is at least somewhat more sustainable than a shotgun, assuming you can use it safely at your place. Cheaper, quieter, and longer range too. But you do need better eyesight, lol.

        1. I have infinite respect for you, ofm, ever since TOD days. I grew up in a city and had a romanticized view of farming until I moved to Maine at 25 and began myself to learn lessons the hard way. Never had the old time experience, but our close neighbor was the last horse farmer in town (he died in 1995).

          I would choose apples to learn my chops—absolutely the hardest crop to grow in new england.

      3. One solution is to move agriculture indoors. This eliminates the need shotguns, herbicides and pesticides, as well as allowing for much more efficient use of land, water and fertilizers.

        Complaints that the technology is “too expensive” are usually based on the fact that inputs are heavily subsidized, so farmers don’t pay for them. for example, farmers in rapidly desiccating California use about ten times as much water per kilogram output to grow tomatoes as farmers in waterlogged Holland. That’s because American farmers get subsidized water. If they paid the true costs of their inputs, they would be a lot more conservative.

        The problems you describe are real, but it’s clear you lack incentives to do anything about them. I favor agricultural subsidies, but governments subsidize the wrong things. Farmers should be incentivized to increase profitability by reducing inputs, not paid to increase output at all costs.

        Countries with challenging environments for agriculture are leading the charge. The most advanced farming techniques come from marginal areas like underwater land-starved Holland, bone-dry Israel and Spain, seemingly hopeless Iceland and over-crowded East Asia.

        The history of agriculture in North America since the advent of European settlers has been a series of booms based on exploiting virgin resources followed by busts caused by ecological disasters. The American government continues to subside this nonsense with cheap inputs. As a result the country is falling farther and father behind in agriculture innovation.

        This reminds me of the way the Japanese crushed the American motorcycle and car industry in the 1970s. Cheap oil, cheap capital, plenty of land and labor and a huge local market made Detroit great. The Japanese were forced to produce on a shoestring budget in a difficult market. That pressure forced them to create things like the Toyota Production System, which now dominates the industry worldwide.

        The future of farming isn’t more shotguns to shoot more porcupines. The only hope of progress is finding ways to reduces the ecological footprint of farming.

        2. Indoor farming still takes over land, depletes (more) finite resources, and grows populations.

          And enclosed growing areas are plagued with pests.

          There are no free lunches.

          1. There are lots of free lunches. for example trade is a free lunch, which is why it promotes growth.

            But getting back to the point, indoor farming take much less land, and pest are usually controlled with solutions like parasitic wasps, which are cheaper and less intrusive than chemical attacks. The lack of exposure is crucial.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXDR4IzOl60&ab_channel=DutchSustain

            Also in Holland they pump in carbon dioxide to accelerate growth. Welcome to the 21st century.

            1. “There are lots of free lunches”

              FOFL!!!

              Trade is not a “free lunch”. Every economic transaction requires energy input.

              It may appear to be on a human life time scale, but it is not on a longer scale.

              http://www.peakoilbarrel.com

            2. Peak Avacado,
              trade may require inputs, but the added value is greater than the inputs. That difference is the free lunch.

            3. “There are lots of free lunches. for example trade is a free lunch, which is why it promotes growth” ~ Alim

              Someone’s got ‘Profits’ confused with ‘Free Lunches’. I don’t mean to be pedantic, not my style, but “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” (TANSTAAFL) is a phrase that describes the cost of decision-making and consumption. TANSTAAFL suggests that things that appear to be free will always have some hidden or implicit cost to someone, or something, even if it is not the individual receiving the benefit. Cornucopian thinkers rarely grasp the concept, and often confuse it with other things, like profits; which are not Free Lunches at all, but are instead an excess of returns over expenditure, and are earned through doing the work of capitalizing on perceived opportunities, like trade. Duh!

              I feel those who ambiguiate basic concepts of distinction, like Profits From Trade vs Free Lunches, are not brokers of intellectual honesty.

            4. ‘There ain’t no free lunch’
              refers to the human impact on the environment.

              Simply.

            6. TANSTAAFL suggests that things that appear to be free will always have some hidden or implicit cost to someone, or something, even if it is not the individual receiving the benefit.

              I mention trade as an example of free lunch because it is an example of what mathematicians call a positive sum game. If two parties willingly trade something, then it is reasonable to assume both sides profit from it — otherwise they wouldn’t do it.

              Another example is helping someone. For example let’s say I am walk down the street and an old lady in front of me falls down and is having trouble standing up. It requires little effort on my part to help her up. TAANSTAFL is the dumb theory that I shouldn’t, because every action has at best zero positive outcome.

              According to this theory, nothing can ever get better. This means we are living in the best of all possible worlds, and that anything we do can only make things worse. So out best bet is to do absolutely nothing. It’s the kind of thought that goes through the mind of a teenager lying in bed suffering from depression, but it has no connection to the real world.

            7. I’m quite certain that TANSTAAFL isn’t a Theory; it’s a popular adage, communicating the idea that it is impossible to get something for nothing. It is used in economics literature to describe opportunity costs. Campbell McConnell writes that the idea is “at the core of economics”. TANSTAAFL indicates an acknowledgement that in reality a person or a society cannot get “something for nothing”. Even if something appears to be free, there is always a cost to the person or to society as a whole, although that may be a hidden cost or an externality. The concept can help consumers make wiser decisions by considering all indirect and direct costs and externalities. Cornucopians often have trouble grasping the concept of No Free Lunch as it negates Magic Porridge Pot economics.

              Positive Sum Game is also an economics term, so perhaps answers lay there. If I plant a nice garden, my neighbors benefit from it for free in that they get a nicer view from their homes. That’s a positive externality (not a Free Lunch). At the same time, their enjoyment of the garden does not interfere with my enjoyment of the garden and vice-versa. Some aspects of the garden, then, are non-rivalrous goods (again, not Free Lunches).

              Helping an elderly lady who is about to fall is called a Good Deed. A Good Deed is an action you take for the betterment of another person or society as a whole. However, Good Deeds need to be perceived as good even if the intent is positive.

              Here’s Where Elon Musk’s $5.7 Billion Gift Likely Went
              https://www.forbes.com/sites/elizahaverstock/2022/02/15/elon-musk-reports-donating-57-billion-to-charity-but-there-is-no-trace-of-that-gift-yet/?sh=78c145522782

              I have very little faith in Cornucopian solutions regarding future trends, likely because cornucopians tend to have such a poor grasp on constructing basic reality & accurate problem definitions.

  2. [W]ithout fundamentally reconsidering our ideas of what actually constitutes civilization, new solar panels and windmills and electric vehicles will only go on powering the same ecocidal, ethnocidal machine that is our presently dominant way of life. These technologies will only create an illusion of change while continuing to perpetuate the same pattern of overexploitation, overpollution, and overshoot.

    Usha Alexander.

    1. “fundamentally reconsidering our ideas of what actually constitutes civilization”…
      what does that even mean?

      1. Hickory, you left out the most important word in that sentence, thereby completely changing the context.
        Without fundamentally reconsidering our ideas of what actually constitutes civilization…

        That means you don’t have to know, or even consider, what actually constitutes civilization to know we are continuing to perpetuate the same pattern of overexploitation, overpollution, and overshoot.

        1. My intention was to make the point that we as humans don’t have any other
          way of being. We are so far down this path, that started with fire and now is tampering with atoms.
          This species is locked in and we are collectively insatiable. Til the end.
          There will be no ‘fundamental reconsidering’.
          We will do only what circumstances force us to do.

          We are not about to stop farming, to stop claiming the entire portion of biosphere that can be monetized or squeezed for energy, to embrace retreat of population, of economy, or of population.

          We will not forgo energy system adaptation (such as electric cars or solar energy). In the past those who did not take advantage of new technologies were always replaced by those cultures that did. We are all descendants of those who took up dogs and then goat and then horse and then metal and then oil.
          The long story is not over just yet.

          1. I think you’re right and that Usha Alexander is an optimist at heart, but she’s on point with her analysis of the problem.

        2. And our wingpawn friends are failing also:
          “But in California, it was Kern County that had the highest per capita homicide rate in the entire state in 2021 — more than double as many as San Francisco, despite being about the same population size. The Republican DA there has blasted reforms like reducing sentencing enhancements. Nationally, one of the largest homicide increases occurred in Fort Worth, Texas — where its tough-on-crime prosecutor attacked judges for setting bail she deemed too low. Memphis, Tennessee, has one of the highest murder rates in the country, despite its DA’s punitive approach that includes prosecuting kids as adults. Indeed, murder rates have been 40% higher in Republican-run states.

          This is true beyond homicides; California jurisdictions with some of the harshest prosecutors — like Riverside — have the highest crime rates. And violent crime in California is worse in conservative jurisdictions.

          1. I learned today that Texas governor Greg Abbott slashed $220 million from the state’s mental health budget last month and today said that the mass murder in Uvalde was unrelated to Texas’ addiction to guns but rather was a mental health issue.
            Perhaps a mental health issue in the governor’s mansion?

        1. Yes. I advise reading her whole series, which Ive been following for months.

    2. The problem with that sentence is that the subject of “reconsidering” isn’t mentioned. By default that means the subject of the following clause is the subject of the sentence. But “new solar panels and windmills and electric vehicles” are sentient being that can consider anything. In other words, the sentence doesn’t make any sense.

      By failing to say who is supposedly not reconsidering, the author allows himself a cheap shot straw-man argument against imaginary enemies who (being imaginary) can’t defend themselves.

      By sneaking the phrase “our ideas” in, he insinuates that the reader (and perhaps all mankind) shares his ideas about what constitutes civilization. I doubt applies to me. Writing sentences in in a way that forces the readers to accept your assumptions to parse the sentence is a common trick in propaganda.

      Worse, by failing to list (let alone defend) his ideas, the author makes his position essentially invincible. The only sensible way to deal with this kind of rhetoric is to ignore it.

      1. “By failing to say who is supposedly not reconsidering, the author allows himself a cheap shot straw-man argument against imaginary enemies who (being imaginary) can’t defend themselves.”

        The author, Usha Alexander, has not allowed HERSELF a cheap shot of any sort. SHE has created a dangling modifier, that’s all. There is no failure here–it’s a simple grammatical shorthand. And so what? The sentence is perfectly understandable, with the introductory statement including the pronoun “our” in it. It could read, “Without our fundamentally reconsidering our ideas” etc., and be perfectly grammatically correct, but it would also sound redundant. And the use of first person plural–“our” and “we”–is no “trick.” She is, after all, writing about US humans, our fate.

        But you’re bent on misreading her as concocting propaganda of some sort. You end up sounding like someone with a paranoid disorder.

    1. Thanks POPS, quite good. Peter makes a lot of assertions that i feel I’d like to fact check, particularly the ones about Russian oil and gas infrastructure and operations. Many here at this fine blog’s comments section likely know quite a bit about what Peter speaks of. Better than I at least. And perhaps better than he. Peter seems quite confident upon the more optimistic prospects for US LTO.

  4. After five or so years of following it, I’m becoming more and more convinced that Tesla’s self-driving platform is irredeemably flawed. I don’t think it has the capacity to come close to FSD (full-self driving), ever. After tolerating Musk for the last few years, I’m also convinced he is a huckster. Probably should have figured this out earlier lol.

    https://dawnproject.com/dont-be-a-tesla-crash-test-dummy/

    1. Driving is 1/2 the fun. The other 1/2 is fixing shit. Lol
      I have no idea what Musk is ever on about.
      He’s a mountebank.

    2. “more and more convinced that Tesla’s self-driving platform is irredeemably flawed”

      Could be true.
      Lets keep in mind that the human self-driving platform is certainly heavily and irredeemably flawed.

    3. Self-driving isn’t Musk’s idea, so insulting him is irrelevant to the technology. It started at Google, in what is now Waymo.

      There are a lot of companies working on it.
      https://www.eetimes.com/robotaxi-trials-in-san-francisco-waymo-vs-cruise/

      https://www.chinamoneynetwork.com/2022/04/29/chinese-autonomous-driving-companies-race-toward-deployment-baidu-weride-and-pony-ai-make-new-inroads

      https://industrialit.com.au/self-driving-truck-technology-mareket-strategic-assessment-swot-analysis-2022-2030-key-players-daimler-volvo-waymo-tesla-tusimple/

      AI has made a lot of progress, as seen in projects like this:
      https://openai.com/blog/dall-e/
      https://this-person-does-not-exist.com/en
      https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03499-y

      But the field has a long history of false dawns and bonkers predictions. We’ll have to wait and see.

    4. I think the main Tesla flaw is philosophical. The Tesla ideal is that “the software will keep you safe from any point A to any point B” instead of the software trying to make us all better drivers by alerting us to hazards.

      I drive a Tesla and I still experience “phantom breaking” because the software sees something that it thinks is there but isn’t. If they can’t get that right, how are they supposed to get more complicated situations straight?

      Would I give up my Tesla? No way. I enjoy driving electric and the Supercharger network puts user experience first but I will never buy into its FSD software of any company. There are too many niche incidents that software can never solve in a timely manner.

      1. Tesla relies only on cameras and the amount of variation in the images coming in due to weather conditions (fog, snow, heavy rain, etc) and sun angle/reflection is vast. The world is quite a dynamic place and the idea the you can teach a computer to interpret a novel situation accurately and respond in time based on these ever-shifting variables is an unproven thesis, to say the least. At least with LiDAR there is a more fundamental understanding of the physical reality that the self-driving car actually faces. But Tesla doesn’t use them.

        I agree humans are pretty crappy drivers so theoretically the bar is low. But in reality any crash caused by a self-driving vehicle will make endless headlines. Apparently cars can be tricked quite easily at present by randomly placed boxes and bicycles to completely stop for an endless amount of time because they are programmed so conservatively. At some point in order to be successful mistakes will have to made with some regularity regardless of the type of system components used, and this means regular human deaths from self-driving cars. I’m just not sure how that will play out.

        https://cleantechnica.com/2022/05/29/uci-researchers-autonomous-vehicles-can-be-tricked-into-dangerous-driving-behavior/

        1. I don’t see computers being able to gauge human motives from the meek to the super aggressive types trying to cross a street. This poses a risk to the driver let alone software. I don’t think FSD is going to happen – ever. A human is better on gauging motive but not nearly 100%. I would think it is a lot less.

  5. Has this been mentioned here yet?

    Fossil fuel industry loses its grip over Australia’s climate and energy policies

    Climate Council Researcher, Dr Wesley Morgan, said the change of government presents an opportunity to repair its international relationships by re-engaging with global efforts to tackle climate change – starting with the Quad meeting.

    The Quad meeting is Prime Minister Albanese’s first chance to showcase what strong leadership looks like from a country that’s been a global climate embarrassment for far too long,” Dr Morgan said.

    “This is a pivotal moment. Climate action is a key area for cooperation among Quad states who make up some of our most important trading partners and allies. The US in particular, our key security ally, has pressed Australia to do more on climate as part of Quad collaboration.”

    “We are well-placed to be a renewables superpower in the region. As one of the sunniest and windiest places on the planet – we should be cashing-in on supplying growing economies with our clean energy, minerals and products,” he added.

    1. If Australia and California can’t figure out how to transition to a renewables-based economy, then we are all screwed. Glad to see the change of government and godspeed to them.

  7. France is the country that has gone whole hog on nuclear energy more than anyone, over the past 3-4 decades.
    It now looks like the peak nuclear generation was 2005 at 452 TWh.
    And this year a big drop is likely-
    “EDF has revised its 2022 nuclear output estimate from 300-30TWh to 295-315TWh”

    Surprisingly, the Capacity Factor in 2019 was only 69%
    meaning that only 69% of the maximum output was achieved- not good at all.
    For comparison the USA 2021 nuclear plant CF was 93%, despite a very old fleet.

    Good discussion on the french industry here-
    https://www.renewable-ei.org/en/activities/column/REupdate/20220128.php

    1. As the chart shows, France created a lot of power plants of about the same design at about the same time. Then they stopped investing almost completely.

      It’s reasonable to assume that the plants all have about the same life expectancy, so entire fleet will fail at about the same time. In the twelve years between 1980 and 1992 they went from about 50 TWh to about 350 TWh. That’s 25 TWh /year. It wouldn’t be surprising if they lost output at about the same speed.

      The real question is when that decline will start. Maybe it already has.

      1. Seems to be a big problem with corrosion at multiple sites currently.
        “EDF will have to carry out maintenance to fix excess corrosion on fuel rods in 25 of its 58 French nuclear reactors, a spokeswoman for ASN, the nuclear watchdog, said Monday.”

        Average age of US nuclear fleet is 41 years.
        Average age of French nuclear fleet is 37 years.

        1. Hickory are there similar numbers for nuclear generation for the US? It would be a major bummer to lose this source of carbon-free electricity at this juncture, but given the average age you posted that looks like a possibility.

        2. Hickory —
          America and France are the two biggest producers of nuclear power electricity by far, and the industry has a very similar history in the two countries. They built like crazy starting in the late 60s, and in the the early 80s they stopped on a dime, and did nothing for 30 years.

          I expect the industry to disappear with the same speed, as each plant reaches its end of life at the same time, like the parts of the deacon’s wonderful one-hoss shay.

          https://www.gutenberg.org/files/45280/45280-h/45280-h.htm

          First of November—the Earthquake-day.—
          There are traces of age in the one-hoss-shay,
          A general flavor of mild decay,
          But nothing local, as one may say.
          There couldn’t be,—for the Deacon’s art
          Had made it so like in every part [had made all the parts so similar]
          That there wasn’t a chance for one to start.
          For the wheels were just as strong as the thills—
          And the floor was just as strong as the sills,
          And the panels just as strong as the floor,
          And the whippletree neither less nor more.
          And the back-crossbar as strong as the fore,
          And spring and axle and hub encore.
          And yet, as a whole, it is past a doubt
          In another hour it will be worn out!

  8. In the USA children and adolescents are twice as likely to die from gunfire than from a malignant tumor
    and gunfire death is now the most common cause of death, as of 2020.

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761

    Death of all USA age groups/100,00 is greater than 12 x’s more than the average in the countries of
    Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, Spain, for example.

    Republicans don’t care about this.

    1. Shall not be infringed. The Constitution is the Law Of The Land, that includes the Second Amendment.

      1. Proves my point.

        btw- “in the era of the founding fathers. They had something much different in mind when they drafted the Second Amendment. The typical firearms of the day were muskets and flintlock pistols. They could hold a single round at a time, and a skilled shooter could hope to get off three or possibly four rounds in a minute of firing. By all accounts they were not particularly accurate either.”
        Constitution says nothing about right to bear semiautomatic weapons.

        1. The constitution says nothing about an individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court made up that bullshit in 2010. At any rate owning a gun is at least as dangerous as driving a car and should require the same level of regulation, age restrictions, training, registration, etc.

          What about the phrase “well-regulated” do you not understand?

          1. The constitution says nothing about an individual’s right to bear arms.

            Well, you are mistaken on that point. The second amendment to the Constitution states clearly: “A well-armed militia being necessary, the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed on.”

            That being said, there are different kinds of arms. Weapons of war such as hand grenades, all types of bombs, bazookas, missiles, and such are arms. People are not allowed to own weapons that are only designed to kill massives amounts of people in as short a time as possible. Well, except of course, arms such as AR15s And AK47s. Those arms are designed for killing massive amounts of people in as short a time as possible, and nothing else. Those are weapons of war and nothing else. They should not be owned by the general public. But a kid not old enough to buy a beer can walk into any gun store and buy one. That is a disgrace.

            2. “Well, you are mistaken on that point. The second amendment to the Constitution states clearly: “A well-armed militia being necessary, the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed on.”

              That’s not correct.

              The 2nd amendment says “”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

              The key phrase is ‘well regulated militia’. The current political posture focuses on “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, and ignores the “well regulated militia” part.

            5. No Ron. A kid walking into a gun store will buy a JR-15, “for the young shooter”. They make an assault rifle for smaller, lighter people. Ergonomically designed for kids. Worry not, they guarantee “it will work just like mom and dad’s gun”.

            6. Does the ‘right to bear arms’ also apply to a robot owned by a citizen. And what about when they are on automated ‘patrol’ mode ?
              The technology for this scenario will be available this decade (or now).

              What does the constitution say about this PHF?

      2. “Shall not be infringed”

        It’s called an amendment lol that would seem to indicate that things about it can be changed.

        1. No, that is not what it means at all. The first 10 amendments to the constitution are called “The Bill of Rights”. And they cannot be changed without the consent of two-thirds of the states (37) giving their permission. That is called “Ratification”. Any part of the Constitution can be changed if approved by Congress and ratified by two-thirds of the states. Amendments are no different from the original constitution in that respect. That is amendments are as much a part of the constitution as the original document was before any amendments were added.

        2. The United States is moribund. And when things get rigid, they get brittle. Get ready for broken.

          1. The tenants of American Civics do well if you’re a group of 17th century Europeans escaping religious persecution and needing to survive your first winter in Virginia or Massachusetts. That is to say, the colonial communities comprised of land owning militia members with a vote did better than the landed gentry who came over with a load of their serfs, who couldn’t seem to be found after trying a winter.

    2. Most of this deads are from illegal handguns, mostly in big towns.

      The problem is in the head of the people. In Switzerland there is an assault rifle in most houses, you only have to get a clip of bullets. But it’s one of the most safe countries. Austria -you can buy shotguns, but not much gun problems. Even Canada – lot’s of riffles there on countryside because of hunting and bears. Much less shooting deads.

      I think the main problem are gangs and mental health. The biggest shootings here in Germany have been mental ill people, too. Untreated schizophrenia can be a really big problem.

      1. Well, in a country with such poor mental health [and high levels of racism, conspiracy theory enthusiasts, and partisan hatred] such as the US, having weapons so easily available is a recipe for disaster.
        Its a cop out to blame the constitution.

        1. If you can get no gun, you can get a car or even a truck. Seen such assaults here in Germany where guns are harder to get.

          The main problem is in the head – but making guns some more hard to get is a good thing. Especially the real murders – all the Glocks and the small stuff. The ARs are the icing on the cake.

        2. Toxic political discourse, gun crazy culture, rampant untreated mental illness; what could possibly go wrong?

          It’s very clear to anyone paying attention that the Root Cause of gun violence is access to guns.

          I live rural working on the retreat and my significant other is in the city doing her thing. I def feel a increased threat of violence when with her in the Big Chity, although we do tend to stay in the shabby end.

      2. Most of this deads are from illegal handguns, mostly in big towns.

        Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home
        A L Kellermann 1, G Somes, F P Rivara, R K Lee, J G Banton

        Results: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides.(My emphasis.) Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

        It is not just “gang violence” (and I challenge you to find a source supporting your contention). Americans shoot themselves, acquaintances, and family members, both accidentally and on purpose, at a startling rate.

        As for cities and gun deaths, the murder rate is higher in Mississippi (28.6 per 100,000) and Wyoming ( 25.9) than in New York State ( 5.3).

        And while Blacks are more likely to die from gun violence (31.8 per 100,000 vs. 11.6 for Whites), there are 5 times more White people.

        But of course, none of this matters. Every gun starts out as a legal gun. People shouldn’t be shooting each other.

        And all lives have equal value.

        https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-by-raceethnicity/?activeTab=map&currentTimeframe=0&selectedDistributions=overall&selectedRows={“wrapups”:{“united-states”:{}}}&sortModel={“colId”:”Location”,”sort”:”asc”}

        1. I’ll take Literature Review for $500, Alex.

          “Mississippi has the third-highest murder rate in the United States. Mississippi’s murder rate is 12.7 murders per 100,000 residents. According to the latest FBI data, Jackson had the most murders in 2018 of 78, which is a murder rate of 47 murders per 100,000 residents. Brookhaven has the highest murder rate in the state of 57.7 murders per 100,000 people.”

          https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/murder-rate-by-state

          “The study reveals differences in urban and rural handgun culture among children and young adults. Among those differences, they found that handgun use was higher among rural participants than those surveyed in urban studies. They also found handgun use began at a younger age for rural youth, and it tended to increase with age.

          And while these rural participants showed higher rates of formal gun safety training, the study notes that rates of firearm suicide are significantly higher in rural areas than in urban areas. ”

          https://www.opb.org/article/2022/04/25/study-on-use-of-handguns-by-youth-reveals-rural-urban-differences/?outputType=amp

          “The federal government banned assault weapons in 1994 but allowed the ban to expire after ten years in 2004. Seven of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history occurred since 2004 when Congress let the federal assault weapons ban expire, and all seven of these shootings involved assault weapons that would have previously been banned by federal law.”

          https://efsgv.org/learn/type-of-gun-violence/mass-shootings/

          “Los Angeles County, home to more than a quarter of California’s population, drove most of the statewide decline in gun homicides. Firearm murders there peaked in 2002, and then dropped by more than half over the subsequent decade, the study indicated. Pear said the decline could be related to reductions in gang violence in the county, but more research is needed to understand the drop off.”

          https://www.calhealthreport.org/2018/04/24/gun-violence-increasingly-rural-problem-study-finds/amp/

          2020 Gun Deaths in USA
          https://publichealth.jhu.edu/sites/default/files/2022-05/2020-gun-deaths-in-the-us-4-28-2022-b.pdf

          “Community gun violence is a form of interpersonal gun violence (assaults) that takes place between non-intimately related individuals in cities. This form of gun violence disproportionately impacts Black and Hispanic/Latino individuals. It occurs in public places — streets, parks, front porches — in cities across the United States, and it makes up the majority of gun homicides that occur in the United States.”

          https://efsgv.org/learn/type-of-gun-violence/community-gun-violence/

        2. As for cities and gun deaths, the murder rate is higher in Mississippi (28.6 per 100,000) and Wyoming ( 25.9) than in New York State ( 5.3).
          That stat is actually for total firearms deaths, not murders…the poster (me!) regrets the error.

    3. The problem with a rule from the 18th century is, this isn’t the 18th century.

      The Founders were afraid of standing armies because they had been “occupied” for years after the French/indian war by the British Army. The army was there to control the King’s “subjects” as much as protect them.
      “A standing military force with an overgrown executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” Madison said in a speech to the Constitutional Convention. “The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”

      There wasn’t a even a professional police force until the 1830s besides perhaps a sheriff to serve papers or a night constable because early Americans though it looked army controlled by the Mayor or whomever.

      What is interesting now is the “collectivist” political faction Is demanding the militarized police be reined in and the government to stay out out of their personal affairs, while the “liberty faction” appears to want an ever more oppressive, authoritarian, anti-democratic government — big military and militarized police BUT also military hardware on the street in civilian hands. Because Antifa? Liberals? Jesus?
      No wonder they are so angry.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/07/16/jesus-and-john-wayne-evangelicals-surprise-bestseller/
      https://www.crf-usa.org/images/pdf/quarteringofsoldiersincolonialaamerica.pdf
      https://newrepublic.com/article/157978/police-violence-george-floyd-constitution

  10. Elon Musk welcomes global recession: ‘it’s been raining money on fools for too long’

    “The billionaire has received loans and tax breaks to help keep Tesla afloat, now he says other companies should go bankrupt for the good of the economy”

    https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2022/may/28/elon-musk-welcomes-global-recession-its-been-raining-money-on-fools-for-too-long

    Dogecoin cocreator calls Elon Musk a ‘grifter’ who had trouble running basic code

    “He’s a grifter, he sells a vision in hopes that he can one day deliver what he’s promising, but he doesn’t know that,” Palmer added, per the outlet. “He’s just really good at pretending he knows. That’s very evident with the Tesla full-self-driving promise.”

    https://www.businessinsider.com/dogecoin-creator-says-elon-musk-grifter-who-couldnt-run-code-2022-5?amp

    1. My own opinion of Musk as a human being is lower than ever, but anybody who calls him a grifter doesn’t know the meaning of the word, lol.

      Like him or not, he has done more to move the world away from oil and towards renewable electricity than any other individual alive today, in my estimation. That HAS to count.

      And I’ve yet to see any really good reason why we should be wasting electricity by the thousands of megawatt hours creating new kinds of money backed by nothing at all, other than confidence in con men who create them……. if you take “Doge coin creator” seriously.
      So……. he’s also a grifter and con man, right?

  11. I’m thinking about getting a VPN and some moderately expensive malware protection for my next new computer.
    And I’m the first person to admit I know next to nothing about such things, so I will have to trust somebody for advice.

    WHICH VPN, and which make of security software do you guys mostly use?

    1. OFM,

      I use one from Protonmail. Also you can use a firefox browser and set it to delete cookies, history, etc every time you close the browser and check settings so cameras, microphones, etc cannot be used without your permission, only allow https sites by default.

    2. NordVPN:

      https://nordvpn.com/

      Combined with:

      Mozilla Firefox
      HTTPS Everywhere (free plugin)
      Privacy Badger (free plugin, you will be shocked at how many companies are tracking you)
      Cookie Autodelete (free plugin)
      Anti – Browser finger printing (research for yourself https://www.amiunique.org/)
      DuckDuckGo not Google

      I would also recommend spoofing your MAC Address a unique identifier built into your Network Interface card (I find youtube tracks u using MAC, when I change it I seem to get the generic recommendations not the personalized ones where they know who you are)

  12. If anybody here is paying close attention to the news concerning long distance power transmission lines, please post any recent links and a few words about them, thanks.

    1. I had recently seen this headline-

      U.S. approves major transmission line from Wyoming to Utah-
      https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-approves-major-transmission-line-wyoming-utah-2022-05-26/
      “The Gateway South project is part of PacifiCorp’s larger plan to add 2,000 miles of new transmission in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah to improve reliability and allow access to low-cost renewable energy resources.

      The utility plans to add thousands of megawatts of wind and solar energy over the next two decades while retiring most of its 22 coal plants. The company has pledged to lower carbon emissions by 74% from 2005 levels by 2030.”

      And saw a technical note- HVDC transmission loss is 4%/1000 km

      Here is another project-
      https://grainbeltexpress.com/

    1. OFM,

      This is just another example of how stupid the average Senator and Congressman is in the US. Oh well, I guess we get the government we elect. The language in the amendment could be changed to “by July 1, 2027, all foreign-flagged ships installing wind turbines on the Outer Continental Shelf must have a U.S. crew or the crew of the nation from which the vessel is flagged.” That allows time for US workers to be trained on this new specialized equipment which up to this time has mostly been used in Europe and Asia.

      1. Or half the crew being American trainees, lol.
        I really do see both sides.
        What the people who want to restrict the work to American guys fail to realize is that we’re no longer THE BIG DOG.
        Europe and parts of Asia are bigger markets now, and we’re locking ourselves out of these markets, in years to come, by locking their men out here, now.

        We’ll never catch up the way things are. They have a big head start, and by the time we get to where they are NOW, they will have moved on another five or ten years in terms of capabilities and controlling costs.

  14. Something that has been perfectly obvious to any old farmer all along.

    https://interestingengineering.com/grazing-sheep-solar-panels-wool-quality

    Sheep eat grass, lol. They’re peaceable, they don’t climb like goats, they’re small enough to graze between close spaced panels, they will nibble whatever is growing down to a nub, very effectively, so that you can just about eliminate the costs of mowing or trimming or using herbicides by stocking sheep at a suitable rate, maybe supplementing their feed or just removing most of them during the winter season.

    But I wouldn’t have predicted MORE wool, or better quality wool.

    And if water for irrigation happens to be available, then running some permanent lines underground with tie ins to operate sprinklers or soakers would be dirt cheap, because the additional labor costs would be trivial……… Just bury the water lines while you’re installing the necessary electrical lines.

    This would mean plenty of grass, and water handy to rinse off panels as well, if cleaning is needed.

    Supplemental irrigation can be a really sweet deal if you’re hit by a drought, or even if you’re not, because it extends the high production phase of a grass well into the hotter part of the summer when there is typically plenty of daylight but typically not as much rain as you would like in most temperate farming areas.

    But the greatest aspect of this combined approach may be that it serves to knock some of the wind out of the sails of anti solar fossil fuel trolls.

    1. The amazing thing is how many farmers failed to notice that in hot weather, livestock prefer shade. Who da thunkit?
      Of course, my hometown in East Tennessee used to have a tree lined downtown. They chopped down the trees to make room for parking and built strip malls on new highways outside town, half of which failed.
      Now they are trying to puzzle out why the ratio of street repair costs to retail sales is so high. The plan is to repair each street every 18 years, but it has slipped to 42 years due to funding issues.
      Could it be that hot featureless plains don’t bring out the best in humans and other animals?

Comments are closed.